EXCLUSIVE The Trial of Erin Patterson: Australian lawyer joins new Mail podcast to explain 'unusual' dismissal of rogue juror
On the latest installment of the 'The Trial of Erin Patterson ' podcast, court reporter Wayne Flower and award-winning crime correspondent Caroline Cheetham were joined by lawyer Paul Svilans to discuss the 'unusual' dismissal of a juror from the court.
Australian mother-of-three Erin Patterson stands accused of murdering three relatives with a poisonous mushroom-laced beef Wellington meal. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The juror, known only as juror 84, was discharged from the case after Justice Christopher Beale said he received credible evidence the person was discussing the facts of the trial with family and friends.
Australian law requires jurors to shield themselves from outside influence throughout the trial to ensure their decision-making remains unprejudiced.
WATCH: The Trial of Erin Patterson podcast
Lawyer Paul Svilans joined 'The Trial' podcast to discuss the 'unusual' dismissal of a juror from the court. Listen here
In practice, this means avoiding media coverage of the case and refraining from discussing trial details outside the courtroom.
Lawyer Paul Svilans, from Australian firm Mark O'Brien Legal, joined 'The Trial' podcast to explain the legal basis behind the juror's removal and why it's 'unusual' for somebody to leave a trial in this manner.
'I think it's fair to say that it's certainly unusual', Mr Svilans began.
'It's not necessarily significant - but it's unusual because of the reasons given by the judge as to why the discharge was going to take place.
'The whole point about having the additional or spare jurors was to take into account circumstances that might necessitate a discharge, sickness, those kinds of things.
'It's unusual because of the reasons his Honor gave as to why the discharge would take place. Whether it's significant or not, who knows?'
Mr Svilans then explained why it's so important for jurors not to discuss details of an ongoing trial with friends and family.
'The jurors are told at the commencement of the trial that they are only allowed to consider the evidence that is laid before them in court', he said.
'It is so important that Ms Patterson has a fair trial and the only way that she can have a fair trial is if the juror makes his or her decision based only on the evidence and nothing else.
'The danger is always, if jurors are allowed to discuss evidence with people outside the jury, persons might seek to influence their decision.
'That could lead to an unfair verdict for the accused, so it is sacrosanct that jurors do not discuss the evidence with anyone else.
'They must make their decision based only on what they see and hear in court.'
The lawyer noted an important distinction made by Judge Beale as he dismissed the anonymous juror.
'The judge made no finding either way about the juror', Mr Svilans emphasised.
'All he said was that there was credible information… there's no positive finding that they were discussing the case with friends or family. He just couldn't dismiss the possibility.'
The trial continues. Erin Patterson has denied the charges against her.
Listen to the full interview with lawyer Paul Svilans on the latest episode of 'The Trial of Erin Patterson', available now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
'For the sake of truth': Weinstein victim Miriam Haley's decision to testify again
On Wednesday, 12 New York jurors found disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein guilty of sexual assaulting Miriam Haley in 2006, after his previous sex crimes conviction in the state was overturned last year. When Miriam Haley heard the news last year that a New York court had thrown out a rape conviction against Harvey Weinstein, the man she helped put behind bars four years before, she was 2020, Ms Haley told a Manhattan courtroom every detail of the time Weinstein sexually assaulted her in his New York apartment in 2006. This time, she was planning to turn down prosecutors, not wanting to put herself through it all again. But just weeks before the retrial, she saw a link to a new podcast series aimed at "exonerating" Weinstein. "I just thought, I have to stand up for myself. I have to stand up for the truth," Ms Haley told the BBC. Ms Haley was one of three women to testify against Weinstein during his six-week retrial, accusing him of using his power as a Miramax Hollywood tycoon to sexually abuse young women. The jury found Weinstein guilty of sexually assaulting only Ms Haley. They found him not guilty relating to a second woman and are still deliberating on the third woman's verdict "gives me hope - hope that there is new awareness around sexual violence and that the myth of the perfect victim is fading", Ms Haley said outside the Manhattan courthouse on Wednesday. A court of appeals overturned Weinstein's previous conviction for sex crimes in New York last April. The judges found Weinstein's original trial was not fair because it included testimony from women who made allegations beyond the official charges against him. In September the 73-year-old was indicted on sexual assault charges for a new pleaded not guilty and again vehemently denied the allegations. His lawyers argued in the retrial that his accusers were "friends with benefits" who had consensual sex with him in exchange for work opportunities. Those portrayals were insulting, said Ms Haley, adding that Weinstein's continued denial of the allegations pushed her to "keep showing up" in court. Facing Weinstein again For this trial, Ms Haley spent four days on the stand - three more than she did the first trial, she could look straight at her assailant, who sat in a wheelchair next to the defence table, unlike during the first trial, when he was blocked by the judge's in, she worried, as she had in the previous trial, about how she would feel."Would I feel intimidated? Would I maybe even feel sorry for him?" she said. "And then when I did see him, it was just like nothing."With Weinstein watching, Ms Haley told the court about their first meeting in France in 2006. She said she went to his hotel thinking they would discuss work opportunities, but Weinstein asked her to give him a massage. She declined and left in remained in contact, and Weinstein later helped Ms Haley find work as a production assistant for the television show Project Runway. Then, one night she accepted an invitation to his New York apartment, she said, because he had just asked her to attend a movie premiere in Los Angeles. On that evening of 10 July 2006, the film mogul "lunged" at her from across a couch and kissed her. He pushed her into a bedroom, where he forcibly performed oral sex on her, Ms Haley testified. "I couldn't get away from his grip," she told the court. "I realized, I'm getting raped, this is what this is."Recounting those intimate details to a room full of strangers for the second time was "exhausting", Ms Haley later told the BBC. "It's just so invasive," she said. An 'offensive' cross-examination After direct questioning, Ms Haley faced cross examination from Weinstein attorney Jennifer Bonjean, who is known for her combative style and has defended other major Hollywood figures accused of sexual assault, including Bill Cosby and R Kelly. When Ms Bonjean grilled her about who removed her clothing on that July evening, Ms Haley answered through tears."He took my clothes off…I didn't take my clothes off," she said. "He was the one who raped me, not the other way around.""That is for the jury to decide," Ms Bonjean replied. The comment was disrespectful, said Ms Haley, who said that she could "feel my eyes balling up, and everything, just because it was just so deeply offensive in that moment"."Regardless of the verdict, it still happened, from my perspective," she said. "I'm still the one who has to live with it."Ms Haley was followed on the stand by actress Jessica Mann, who was involved in Weinstein's first New York trial, and former model Kaja Sokola, who testified for the first time, accusing Weinstein of sexually assaulting her when she was 19. The jury found Weinstein not guilty of assaulting Ms Sokola, and is still deliberating over whether he raped Ms Mann. Weinstein still must serve a separate 16-year sentence for sex crimes in California, meaning he was already expected to spend the rest of his life in prison regardless of the retrial's outcome. In total, he has been accused of sexual misconduct, assault and rape by more than 100 women. A 'small victory' in showing up to court Like many victims of sexual assault, Ms Haley did not come forward publicly about the abuse for years. She said she adopted a strategy from her difficult childhood - one that included abuse - where she suppressed the traumatic memories and went on with life as usual. Nonetheless, the assault had emotional consequences. "I lost confidence in a lot of things," Ms Haley said. "All I could see on the surface was all these people fawning over him. It was extremely humiliating and embarrassing."Ms Haley eventually decided to come forward after other women accused Weinstein of assault, helping to galvanize the #MeToo was sent death threats - but also dozens of messages from women who said she had motivated them to speak out about their own abuse."It does have this ripple effect," she said. Ultimately, the verdict was evidence of the "lasting and real change" around sexual assault awareness, Ms Haley said, calling the conviction a "release". Now a freelance producer who spends time in Mexico, Ms Haley believes the end of the retrial will close a painful chapter, one she thought was already sealed with Weinstein's first conviction. "Even me showing up this time feels like a small victory," she said. "I definitely wasn't really doing it for myself. I was doing it for the sake of truth, and for other women."
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Juror at Weinstein sex crimes retrial asks to speak to judge about troubling ‘situation'
Jury deliberations in Harvey Weinstein's sex crimes retrial teetered Wednesday as the foreperson again requested to speak to the judge about 'a situation' he found troubling. The man – who complained Monday that other jurors were pushing people to change their minds and talking about information beyond the charges – was being questioned in private, at his request. While the jury was in court to hear the answer to an earlier request to re-hear the text of a rape law, the foreperson signaled to Curtis Farber, the judge, that he wanted to talk. 'He said words to the effect of 'I can't go back in there with the other jurors,'' Farber explained later. The foreperson was sent to wait in a separate room, where he penned a note saying, 'I need to talk to you about a situation.' When briefly brought into court, the foreperson said he wanted to speak in private. He, the judge, prosecutors and Weinstein's lawyers then went behind closed doors. The seven female and five male jurors started their fifth day of deliberations Wednesday by re-hearing accuser Jessica Mann's testimony that he raped her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013. Mann's accusation was an apparent focus of Tuesday's deliberations, and the jury ended the day by asking to be re-read her testimony about what happened between her and Weinstein at the hotel. The group also indicated it wanted to continue privately reviewing her emails with Weinstein and some 2017 medical records concerning her reaction to news accounts of other women's allegations against him. Some jurors appeared to take fresh notes Wednesday, while others sat impassively as court stenographers read aloud the requested parts of Mann's days-long testimony. The jury had already reheard some of the passages last week. Weinstein, 73, has pleaded not guilty to raping Mann and to forcing oral sex on two other women, Mimi Haley and Kaja Sokola. The Oscar-winning producer and former Hollywood powerbroker maintains that he never sexually assaulted or raped anyone, and his lawyers portrayed his accusers as opportunists who accepted his advances because they wanted a leg up in the entertainment world. While all three women stayed in contact with Weinstein despite what they say were assaults, Mann had a particularly complex history with him. She testified that they had a consensual relationship that exploded into rape, yet continued afterward. Weinstein was one of the movie industry's most powerful figures until a series of sexual misconduct allegations against him became public in 2017, fueling the #MeToo movement and eventually leading to criminal charges. He originally was convicted in 2020 of raping Mann and forcing oral sex on Haley. Sokola's allegation was added last year, after New York state's highest court overturned the 2020 conviction and sent the case back for retrial. Meanwhile, Weinstein is appealing a 2022 rape conviction in Los Angeles. After a couple of days of apparent interpersonal friction, the retrial jury worked through Tuesday with no further complaints.
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Prime suspect for di murder of Hafsat Yetunde Lawal say im no get hand for her death
Di ongoing trial into di death of 23-year-old Hafsat Yetunde Lawal take anoda twist wen di prime suspect Abdulraheem Bello testify for court say no be im kill her. "No be me kill Hafsot Yetunde Lawal, di police accuse me say I dey lie and dem tok say na me kill am," e tok. On Wednesday, 11 June, di trial of Abdulkareem Bello plus four odas wey dey charged wit five counts wey include murder and conspiracy bin kontinu for di Kwara State High Court. Di late Hafsot, na final-year student for Kwara State College of Education for Ilorin wen she pass away suddenly for February 2025. One BBC reporter wey dey for di trial say di main suspect, Abdulrahman, tell di court that teaching children to read and write plus oda activities na im job. We dey update dis tori
