3 ms·
I didn't go to Sunny's trial, but it didn't seem to generate much drama. The idea that he was the manipulator is a "finding of fact" in legal parlance. She can
by Cupertino95014 4y ago
I didn't go to Sunny's trial, but it didn't seem to generate much drama.
The idea that he was the manipulator is a "finding of fact" in legal parlance. She can't raise that on appeal. Maybe if the defense tried and the judge refused to allow it, that could be appealed as an "error" and thus appealed. Offhand I don't think that happened in her trial, but I could be wrong (?)
Only a new trial could bring that up. An appellate court could order a new trial; that happens sometimes.
And, of course, in the sentencing hearing, they can try to blame Sunny. I don't think that reduces her sentence to zero, if it works at all.
IANAL, so someone who is: feel free to correct me.
- nradov 4y agoI haven't read the trial transcripts but "manipulator" isn't really a formal term in criminal law. Even if the jury found that Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani encouraged Elizabeth Holmes to commit her crimes, that wouldn't be considered grounds for an acquittal, new trial, or lighter sentence. Adult, mentally competent defendants are legally considered to be responsible for their own actions (except for rare circumstances of coercion or threats which are obviously not a factor here).