How jurors will decide the outcome of Erin Patterson's mushroom triple-murder trial

RNZ News

7 hours ago

A handout sketch received from the Supreme Court of Victoria shows Erin Patterson, an Australian woman accused of murdering three people with a toxic mushroom-laced beef Wellington.
Photo:
AFP / PAUL TYQUIN
By
Judd Boaz
, ABC
More than nine weeks of legal proceedings have unfolded in
Erin Patterson's murder trial
, with the jury now set to deliberate on its verdict.
Patterson is accused of murdering three relatives and attempting to murder a fourth at a lunch at her home in Leongatha, south-east of Melbourne, on July 29, 2023.
She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, with her lawyers arguing the incident was a tragic accident.
A panel of jurors, who have watched the proceedings take place in the town of Morwell from start to finish, will now decide whether or not the alleged crimes have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Here's what we know about how juries deliberate in Victoria.
Those who travelled to Morwell to watch the trial in person may have initially seen 15 potential jurors empanelled.
Members of the media gather outside the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court for the trial of triple-murder suspect Erin Patterson in Morwell.
Photo:
AFP / MARTIN KEEP
This is because the Supreme Court empanelled an extra three people in case a potential juror fell sick or was discharged.
We saw the importance of this measure first-hand on May 15, when Justice Christopher Beale opened court proceedings on what he described as "an unhappy note".
Justice Beale told the panel that one of their fellow jurors had been removed based on "credible" information given to the court.
"I received information that he had been discussing the case with family and friends, contrary to my instructions," the judge said.
"I was of the view that it was at least a reasonable possibility that the information I'd received was credible."
He ordered the jury not to contact the discharged juror.
The two reserve jurors were balloted off after the judge gave his final directions to the jury, leaving 12 people to determine whether to acquit or convict Patterson of the four charges.
The jury has now attended the court almost every weekday for nearly two months.
More than 50 prosecution witnesses were called to give evidence, from fungi experts who logged the location of deadly death cap mushrooms in Gippsland, to the nurses and doctors who treated all five attendees of the lunch for poisoning symptoms.
The prosecution alleges Erin Patterson foraged for death cap mushrooms intentionally.
Photo:
Supplied/iNaturalist
Photos of a dehydrator that Patterson admitted to throwing away in panic and detailed phone and hospital records were among the dozens of pieces of evidence shown to the jury across several weeks.
When it came time for Patterson's legal team to call a witness, defence barrister Colin Mandy SC put Patterson herself in the witness box.
After several days of emotional testimony where Patterson shed tears watching footage of police interviewing her children, the prosecution began its cross-examination.
Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC engaged in several days of at-times tense questioning, regularly putting suggestions of guilt to Patterson, which she strongly denied.
Following Patterson's testimony, both Mandy and Rogers made their closing addresses to the jury, recapping their cases to the jury over the course of several days.
Finally, Justice Beale presented his final instructions to the jury over several days, telling the panel it must limit its deliberations to evidence presented before the court.
"You are the only ones in this court who can make a decision about these facts," he said.
"No one in the media, in public, in your workplace or in your homes have sat in that jury box throughout [this trial] … you and you alone are best placed to decide whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt."
Erin Patterson speaking to media prior to being charged.
Photo:
ABC News
When it comes to deciding whether Patterson is guilty of murder or not, the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the four legal elements of that charge have been met.
Those are:
Justice Beale told the jury on Monday that what was in dispute was whether the serving of the poisonous meal was deliberate and whether it was done with murderous intent.
The judge explained that for the charge of attempted murder, the jury needed to be satisfied Patterson had intended to kill Ian Wilkinson, and that an intention to cause really serious injury was not applicable.
As the defence reminded the jury in both its opening and closing arguments, the onus is on the prosecution to prove Patterson intentionally poisoned her relatives - in other words, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died from suspected mushroom poisoning.
Photo:
ABC / Supplied
Ian Wilkinson (left) was the only guest to survive the lunch. His wife Heather Wilkinson, and Don and Gail Patterson all died.
On the opening day of the trial, Mandy urged the jury to consider this as a scale.
"Remember that scale: innocent down here," he said.
"That's your starting point: open mind.
"Guilt is all the way up there," he said as he gestured higher.
Jurors have also been warned about the risk widespread media coverage poses to the high-profile case.
Global media attention has shrouded the case for weeks.
Justice Beale has explicitly warned jurors to reject any approaches from friends and family keen to discuss the case.
He also warned them against undertaking their own investigations, such as visiting websites named in the trial or searching relevant locations online.
Jurors who carry out their own research don't only risk an unfair trial; they also risk committing contempt, which can be a criminal offence.
We will never know.
Deliberations are kept strictly confidential. Jurors must not share what took place to anyone - even after a verdict has been reached.
The secrecy of deliberations is a key part of the justice system, and what determines a jury's decision is never publicly revealed.
"It's difficult to get access to jurors, but there's good reason for it," Professor Horan said.
However, jurors are not completely left to their own devices. They may ask questions of the judge or request to see certain evidence again, but that doesn't always happen.
On Monday the jury was told they would deliberate from Monday to Saturday.
They will be sequestered, meaning they will not go home during the week and on Sundays.
That's one question we can't really answer.
Remember, the jury's verdicts must be unanimous, meaning all 12 panel members have to agree.
Suffice it to say that deliberations will take as long as they need to.
Given the requirement for a unanimous verdict, even one dissenting member can cause a "hung jury", meaning no unanimous verdict can be reached.
Without trying to influence jurors' verdicts, the judge may offer assistance to prevent that outcome.
But in the event that the jury remains unable to reach a consensus and a hung jury is declared, they will be discharged, and a new trial eventually held.
On Monday, Justice Beale told the jury their verdict must be unanimous on each charge, but that that did not mean they must all reach their decisions the same way.
"No matter how you reach your verdict, you must all agree," he said.
- ABC