The Ninth Circuit's ruling in USA v. Holmes highlights a troubling trend in criminal trials—courts dismissing improper expert witness testimony as "harmless error." In Elizabeth Holmes' appeal, the court acknowledged errors in admitting expert-like testimony but upheld her conviction anyway. This article explores why relying on speculative harmless error rulings in cases like Theranos sets a dangerous precedent.

In United States v. Kousisis, Defendant challenges a federal wire fraud conviction under the fraud in the inducement theory. In this case, the 3rd Circuit expanded federal fraud statutes to include a theory where there was a false statement hat induced the victim to contract. Such an extension post Ciminelli would be an expansion of statutes to cover garden variety breaches of contract.