
Ex-Theranos CEO Holmes puts mental state at issue - Element_
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-theranos-holmes/ex-theranos-ceo-holmes-puts-mental-state-at-issue-to-be-examined-by-u-s-experts-idUSKBN2612Q3
======
filmgirlcw
> Davila authorized the examinations after Holmes’ lawyers said they intended
> to introduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist “relating to a
> mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant
> bearing on the issue of guilt.” > > The defense expert, Mindy Mechanic, is a
> California State University at Fullerton professor specializing in
> psychosocial consequences of violence, trauma and victimization, including
> violence against women, and often testifies in cases involving interpersonal
> violence, according to her university biography.

Ok, so my theory is that based on the expert her lawyers are calling, they are
going to argue that Sunny groomed/abused Holmes over the course of their
relationship (probably by calling attention to the age difference/power
dynamic difference when they first met), which left her with trauma that led
to her making the decisions she made.

So “Battered Woman Syndrome” [1] but applied to fraud instead of
assault/murder.

If that’s the case, it really seems like they aren’t going to argue that
Holmes didn’t deceive and commit fraud, but that her PTSD is a defense.

Novel. This may have worked in the 1980s, the era of the the Twinkie defense
[2] and other ways of arguing diminished capacity, but I’m not sure it’ll be
successful here.

[1]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome)
[2]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense)

~~~
donmcronald
It's pretty crazy how rich people get to argue they have mental health issues,
but poor people can't. If she were a poor person that robbed a convenience
store it would be straight to jail and no one would care about any past
trauma.

I also think it's kind of BS to be honest. To me it feels like one step away
from "the defendant is a psychopath that feels no remorse, so never developed
the ethics needed to understand that murder is wrong, so they shouldn't be
culpable."

It's rich people paying "experts" to skew the perception of what's right and
what's wrong.

~~~
taurath
And yeah, if someone who doesn’t have enough to eat steals from a grocery
store we throw em in jail. I’d venture most people in prison were traumatized
at some point. Take into account their circumstances. This is an educated
privileged woman who defrauded everyone around her for years. I expect her to
get community service, frankly. The only reason she’d end up in jail is that
she took rich peoples money.

~~~
throwaway894345
I agree with your broader point even if I think this characterization is
exaggerated. The system is skewed toward the rich; however, I do think
sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-offending, and I would intuit
that rich people (especially white-collar criminals) are less likely to re-
offend due to some combination of greater fear of prison ("more to lose") and
damage to their reputation ("people don't tend to trust fraudsters multiple
times" though there are exceptions to every rule). Poorer people are probably
more likely to re-offend due to systemic issues, and at least in my major US
city we have a perennial problem of violent gun offenders being released after
only a few months or years only to re-offend (typically disproportionately in
poorer communities, perpetuating the poverty cycle). I very much doubt that
differences in likelihood of re-offending account for the entire sentencing
disparity between rich and poor; however, to the extent that it contributes to
the disparity, we shouldn't try to solve for that gap by lightening sentences
on account of poverty, but by addressing the upstream systemic issues
(notably, lighter sentencing often perpetuates systemic issues, as with my
anecdote about violent gun offenders).

~~~
begemotz
>"however, I do think sentencing should factor in the likelihood of re-
offending,"

This is very troubling thinking. The problem here is - not only are you
sentencing them for future, 'possible' crimes but you are doing it on the
basis of demographics - there are huge issues to consider here.

And what would it buy that isn't accounted for by using something more
individual and predictive of re-offending -- like whether (and how frequently)
they have offended in the past -- which _is_ used in sentencing guidelines?

~~~
throwaway894345
You’re confusing correlation with causation. Sentencing someone because they
are likely to reoffend will affect poor people differently than rich people in
aggregate due to aforementioned systemic effects but it doesn’t follow that
someone is being sentenced on the basis of their individual poverty or wealth.

------
perl4ever
If people would read the article, it says

"The defense expert, Mindy Mechanic, is a California State University at
Fullerton professor specializing in psychosocial consequences of violence,
trauma and victimization, including violence against women, and often
testifies in cases involving interpersonal violence,"

...which might give a clue as to what the mitigating mental issue could be.
Obviously they are not going to say she's a psychopath.

~~~
filmgirlcw
Right. As I wrote in another comment, this seems to be a way to argue
diminished capacity, probably by arguing that she was a victim of battered
spouse syndrome. It’s the modern day Twinkie defense.

~~~
perl4ever
I think that's probably trivializing it. I happen to be reading the (or a)
book about Theranos, "Bad Blood", and it seems like something worse might be
the issue. Maybe not just with one person either. She founded the company at
like 19. And had a relationship very early with Sunny who was like twice her
age.

~~~
benmmurphy
What is the decision procedure for distinguishing between a woman who is being
taken advantage of and a woman who is exploiting those around her? If she
doesn’t flag as an exploiter is our decision procedure useful?

~~~
perl4ever
I don't think those things are mutually exclusive in a given person, and may
or may not happen at the same time.

I'm not sure I understand the question overall.

------
hetspookjee
Well, if I'm putting on my rose glasses I'm just hoping that if she wins by
this argument, she might just set a precedent for all the youth offenders of
crime?

Why would this case be any different of say, someone that grew up in an
extremely poor neighborhood and had most of their life working against them,
and then turn to crime. Instead of just throwing such young offenders into
jail for a long time, a lawyer might argue that this high profile case is a
precedent for the young offenders - because they couldn't help themselves.

It feels really unfair, though.

~~~
dmix
What is unfair here exactly? There hasn’t been anything close to a ruling.
These hypotheticals in this thread are getting way ahead of reality here.

It sounds like the courts are preempting the defense strategy by forcing a gov
psych review instead of one paid for by the defendant.

In criminal law cases it’s not an instant get out of jail free card if you’re
found to have some mental issues. Nearly every lawyer brings up mental states
in serious crimes. These judges aren’t stupid.

~~~
staticman2
Judges don't decide cases, juries do.

There are some people with medical degrees in this world who will say anything
for money. Wealthy people pay these individuals to try to get them out of
jail. Normal people can't afford that.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Judges don't decide cases, juries do.

Even with jury trials, that's not really true, except that alignment with the
jury verdict is required for criminal conviction (but not acquittal, or any
civil judgement.) Because summary judgement/judgement as a matter of
law/judgement _non obstante veredicto_ is a thing, and even if one isn't
issued in a particular case, it's because either no one petitioned the judge
for it (unlikely) or the judge decided against it.

------
bra-ket
oh, the good old "i'm not a criminal, i'm just crazy" story.

Actually fits the profile of someone who sends an army of lawyers to
intimidate a whistleblower.

------
timavr
Look I don't mind that defence.

But can we like all get such good defence. Where do I sign up or who to vote
for so every American citizen gets a legal representation like this.

Normally if you defraud somebody, you are going to prison for a long, long
time very very quickly.

~~~
VWWHFSfQ
Not sure I understand. Any defendant could claim this defense and get
psychologically evaluated.

~~~
throwaway2048
Good luck if you don't have the money for a good lawyer

------
g42gregory
I would think she suffers from psychopathy. Would it matter in court?

~~~
DetroitThrow
Psychopathy is not a valid insanity plea. Killing someone and feeling good or
nothing is inequivalent to not comprehending your own actions.

~~~
perl4ever
Of course your first sentence is correct, I assume.

But...you're saying feeling bad is not a type of comprehension? That is,
empathy is not comprehension?

~~~
pdonis
_> empathy is not comprehension?_

Not in the sense in which the law requires you to comprehend the consequences
of your actions. An insane person could feel bad after killing someone because
they respond with empathy after the fact, but still not have comprehended
before the fact that what they were doing was going to kill someone. The
latter, if established beyond a reasonable doubt, would mean they would not
meet the legal comprehension requirement.

And, conversely, a psychopath could comprehend perfectly well before the fact
that what they were doing was going to kill someone, but feel nothing because
they don't care. They would still meet the legal requirement for
comprehension.

(Disclaimer: IANAL.)

~~~
perl4ever
I think you're implying that somehow one has comprehension only before, and
empathy only after. Why can't you have either in either order?

~~~
pdonis
_> I think you're implying that somehow one has comprehension only before, and
empathy only after._

No, I'm just saying that to establish legal comprehension, you can't look at
empathy, because they're two different things. They might go together--in
normal, sane people they almost always _will_ go together, both before and
after--but you can't rely on it, since the people you are going to ask the
question about in the first place--the people for whom you might have to
evaluate a possible insanity defense--are precisely the people in whom you
can't rely on them going together.

------
hn_throwaway_99
IANAL, but what I haven't seen mentioned here is that, in my understanding, in
US federal court "diminished capacity" is not a defense against guilt, but
only a factor that can result in a lower sentencing guideline.

This seems like a real Hail Mary from the defense, I'd be shocked if she is
able to avoid jail time.

------
foobar1962
Assuming this strategy works, or almost works, will a requirement need to be
implemented that every year company directors must declare they are of sound
mind, and have that signed-off by a medical expert (so they cannot claim that
their mental unsoundness caused them to make a false declaration)?

------
yalogin
Holmes swindled and loooted from the VCs and her employees now the lawyers are
going to take it from her.

~~~
55555
Yes but there is a chance of them actually providing an incredible service in
exchange.

------
gorgoiler
If the state puts you on trial, do you automatically qualify for state-
provided mental health services?

I assume incarceration also comes with psychiatric care. If I went to prison
I’d probably need a lot of therapy even if I accepted my punishment. More, if
I didn’t.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Incarceration is punitive. Psychiatric "care" in prison is sedative drugs and
physical restraints to enforce compliance, not cures.

~~~
gorgoiler
No. If someone falls and cuts their finger _in prison_ , I’d hope it was
bandaged.

The mind is a bunch of fingers.

------
seibelj
What could the mitigating mental issue be? She’s clearly not incompetent.
She’s crazy like a fox!

~~~
haram_masala
I read John Carreyrou's book on the Theranos debacle, and I know someone who
worked there. At risk of violating the Goldwater Rule, I'd say Ms. Holmes has
some serious psychological issues that make her incompetent, primarily her
capacity for self-delusion. And not just the "I'll skip my workout today and
run extra tomorrow" type of self-delusion that so many of us are capable of, I
mean a truly bizarre distortion of reality as she sees it.

I also read an article about her childhood and family life. It was sad,
overwrought with anxiety, and a formula for the exact kind of pathology she
appears to have had at Theranos. Even if she had lost my investment capital
instead of other people's, I'd still feel sorry for her rather than angry.

~~~
lostmsu
So what are the examples of delusions?

------
cblconfederate
Here's to the Crazy Ones

------
joshu
I saw something on twitter about her ... pet horned beetle eating her other
pet horned beetle?

~~~
edoceo
You send me on a wild Google chase and I found nothing.

------
greesil
Being a high functioning sociopath is not a valid defense.

------
apta
The typical cop-out excuse.

