The prosecution introduced communications that connected the disputed payments to Ryan's former associates and demonstrated the personal benefits alleged in the indictment. The defense disputed the interpretations, argued that the transactions were legitimate consulting work, and questioned whether the crisis had motivated witnesses to blame Ryan. The jurors listened for days as accountants explained the difference between an expense being authorized in a budget and the underlying work actually being performed. There were moments when the case seemed to consist entirely of paper.
Otis knew the paper mattered. A bad decision could be buried under a pleasant memo. An employee's complaint could disappear when no one insisted on a record. A financial transfer could appear reasonable until the receiving company and the work it allegedly performed were examined closely. The documents had allowed dishonest people to construct a version of reality; properly preserved, they could also allow the truth to be tested.
When she took the stand, the defense attorney began politely. He asked about the original founding agreement, her engineering degree, and her decades-long absence from public leadership. Then his questions sharpened.
Hadn't she allowed Ryan to use the voting proxy? Hadn't she signed company reports? Hadn't she continued receiving shareholder distributions while working as a janitor? If conditions were so terrible, why had she done nothing sooner?
Otis did not look away. "I did some things, and I failed to do others," she answered. "I signed proxies. I trusted assurances I should have checked. I spoke privately when I needed to speak publicly. I regret that."
The attorney leaned toward the lectern. "So you accept responsibility for Sterling Corporation's financial failures?"
"I accept responsibility for my own decisions. That does not make a false invoice into real work, and it does not change who approved the transfers we are discussing."
The attorney paused. He had hoped to provoke defensiveness, perhaps an angry statement he could use to suggest bias. Instead, Otis had given him the portion of responsibility that belonged to her while refusing to carry the portion that belonged to someone else. The distinction was difficult to make theatrical. It was also difficult to undermine.
Later, the prosecutor asked her why she had entered the boardroom at 10:17 that Tuesday morning. Otis described the four hundred proposed dismissals, the lack of a convincing operations analysis, and the executive compensation arrangements linked to the cuts. She did not say she knew about every fraudulent transaction at the time. She explained that her purpose had been to stop an immediate decision and require the leadership to answer for its reasoning.
"Were you trying to punish Mr. Sterling?" the prosecutor asked.
"No. I was trying to protect the company from another decision made without listening to the people who would have to live with it."