And also they won’t be necessarily be found guilty on every charge. It’s better for the state to bring lots of charges with the hope they can prove at least some of them beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state brings one charge and it doesn’t produce a guilty verdict, then the defendant is found not guilty and they go free. If the state brings 10 charges and the defendant is found guilty on 1 and not guilty on the other 9, then the defendant will be subject to the punishment on that 1 guilty charge.
It’s not like buckshot and ducks. Each charge gets reviewed to see it if meets the test for evidence that supports the elements of the offence and reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Sure, but if the state only brings one charge, that’s the only one that goes to trial. They could do sequential trials for each charge, but it’s more efficient to bring them all at once. And it may be a jury reviewing the evidence. No matter how certain the state thinks the charge is, if the jury disagrees, then the charge doesn’t stick.
Yes. A prosecutor may also properly decide, probable cause having been found, that some charges are stronger than others, and proceed with many even if the trial jury eventually only convicts on one or a few. Having multiple charges also gives the prosecutor more bargaining chips in plea negotiations.
I agree that concurrent sentences are far more often imposed in American courts than consecutive ones. However, in Ohio at least, if the court determines that the defendant committed the worst form of the offense, or that concurrent sentencing would demean the seriousness of the offenses, consecutive sentences are more likely to be imposed. I believe the Federal courts take a similar approach.
Given the brazenly-lying, years-long, process-abusing and life-endangering criminal conduct of Holmes and Balwani in running Theranos into the ground and burning through almost a billion dollars of investor moola, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them get hammered at sentencing.
Indeed, I’ll confess to hoping that they do.
I’d be surprised if their sentences amounted to half the maximum possible. I’d be astonished if Holmes wound up serving more than three years in a minimum security facility
I understand your points intellectually, but it still seems wrong. 
Thanks for your explanations. As usual, you did a great job explaining the legal stuff.
Yes. In the US, DAs like to throw a lot of charges at first to try to force a plea deal. If it goes to trial, often a lot of the lesser charges are dropped. The piling on of charges is a somewhat controversial subject in the US.
Not holding by breath, but I hope you are right.
Unfortunately, this seems like a more likely outcome.
Remember folks, if you are going to steal a bunch of money, use lies instead of safecracking tools or a weapon.
Would additional charges change the non-incarcerative aspects a sentence, like restitution and fines? If so, that would be an additional reason to increase charges.
I find the concept of concurrent sentences for different charges of the same nature fundamentally wrong.
Let’s ignore various 3-strikes and out or “career criminal” laws in the following hypothetical.
Bob the Bad Guy mugs somebody, gets arrested, gets convicted, does 5 years.
Bob’s a slow learner, so shortly after his release he does the same crime with the same result again. 5 more years in the state penitentiary.
Bob gets out and does it again. Same story.
So ~18 years later he’s committed 3 robberies, had 3 trials and wasted 15 years in a cage on the state’s nickel.
Speedy Greedy Sam is much smarter than bumbling slow-learner Bob. He commits 3 muggings. One on Monday, another on Tuesday, and another on Wed. Then he gets arrested and tried for all 3. And is duly convicted of 3 counts, and serves 5 years per, but concurrently.
Same number of victims, same societal damage, wildly different sentence. Sam got the volume discount. Why is this good administration of justice?
Or did I miss something fundamental?
I am also curious about this question. Anyone know how the financials work here? Are the investors SOL? And related, what happens to these to characters’ finances? When they get out of the clink, do they have any assets related to the company that they get to keep? I don’t know what those would be, but after serving whatever time they get, will they be millionaires?
Incarceration is not for punishment of the criminals, but to protect society from them. (Very much open for debate, but that is the fundamental idea.)
I see your point. But what is the societal purpose of the additional 10 years for Sam?
In reality, the 5 years concurrent are probably due to a plea deal, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial. On the other hand, the situation you describe is one where the judge might very well make the sentences consecutive. Concurrent sentences are more common when one series of acts constitute several crimes. For example, felon in possession of a firearm, illegally possessing illegal substance with intent to distribute, and sale of illegal substance. The guy is going to get more time than someone who just did one crime, but the three sentences would probably be served concurrently.
I came in to say the same thing. The only way three different crimes over the course of a few days will be tried together is if it’s part of a crime spree. In that case, the victimization of each person is likely to result in its own punishment.
Precisely.
The latest:
Can she and Sunny just go to fucking jail already?
She’ll be sentenced on November 18.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Some defendants are allowed to remain free on bond during appeal. Some are not.
Some who have to start serving their time are taken into custody at sentencing. Some are given a date to report to begin their sentence.
So, we’ll have to wait and see what happens.
Plus she’s pregnant again so that could delay her start date as well.
How convenient! 
Huh. Never heard of her before: Diane Downs - Wikipedia