They

wanted to show at the time that elizabeth holmes started kind of this campaign of lies, that what was going on in the company. And i think that a lot of it got lost in the weeds. I i'd be surprised if that really resinated with the jury. But what did come out, which was very clear, was the company was under severe financial distress. It wasn't make money. Was losing hundreds of millions of dollars during that time elizabeth holmes was flying on private jets around the country. And i think their point is that created a type of desperation, which explains all th other actions. But

j etdelson warrns prosecutors have to be careful about going too deep with some of these more complex topics. Ad, i'm a little bit concerned that the prosecutors cond have fallen into this trap explaining some

very hard science and then also explaining some very difficult financial issues. You know, even for me, i had to read the transcript a couple of times to really understand what they were saying. And the idea that a lay jury is going to easily be able to assimilate 13 weeks of trial testimony over some very diff issues, is that's going to be the big challenge by the prosecutors the defence. I mean, so smart just saying, oh, they're just going to bore you to death.

This

is sunny hoston from a b c eview. And how's this for a hot our special podcast series, the view, behind the table, is up for a webo ward voting is open to the public right now, but it closes thursday night. So don't wait. Go to a b c audio dot com slash webbs to cast your vote for behind the table and other a b c podcast like stark here. And the drop out. Again, that a b c audio dot com slash webbs to cast your votes

this trial. May see hundreds of witnesses and last three months or more. But defence attorney cathy fleming thinks it's likely many of the jurors have already made up their mind

if the stats play out. The research is pretty good on this and says about two thirds of the jurors have their minds made up after the open statements. So they're important parts of the case, and you really want to try to get the jury to understand it right away.

So who's been more convincing?

I thought the government's opening statement was far more detailed in terms of what precisely they were going to show, and in some instances, who was going to provide that evidence. The government knows exactly what its witnesses are going to say. They've preparing. They've been meeting with them, and they know basically how the testimony is going to come out.

She says. The defence wisely took this into account in the opener.

I notice they were very careful. There have been defences put forward about perhaps claiming abuse with her former boy friend, former co defendant, who can be going to trial next. But instead of detailing that all in the opening statements, all the defense said about it is basically watch and listen and you'll see what the relationship was and what kind of influence he had over her. And i don't blame them for doing that. Until they hear all the evidence and see how it comes out. You don't want to be in a position where you're saying something that's proven untrue right away. The defence has to play some his own defence here and see what happens when it comes out.

Attorney j addleson still believes the government has the upper hand.