Judge in Erin Patterson murder trial tells jury they must find her not guilty if they believe her evidence

Australia Broadcast Center

6 hours ago

The judge in Erin Patterson's triple-murder trial has told the jury that if they believe the evidence given by the accused at trial, they must find her not guilty.
Justice Christopher Beale on Tuesday began his final instructions to the Supreme Court jury.
The trial, which is being heard in the regional Victorian town of Morwell, is in its ninth week.
The trial of Erin Patterson, who stands accused of using a poisoned meal to murder three relatives, continues.
Follow the latest news in our live blog.
To stay up to date with this story, subscribe to ABC News.
Ms Patterson is accused of murdering her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, and attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian, by serving them a beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms during a meal at her home in Leongatha in 2023.
She has pleaded not guilty.
Beginning his instructions, Justice Beale said the jury must limit its deliberations to evidence presented before the court, which he said were testimony, exhibits, and agreed facts.
He said comments made by himself or counsel were not evidence, and that only the jury could decide whether Ms Patterson was guilty or not guilty.
"You are the only ones in this court who can make a decision about these facts," he said.
Ms Patterson was the trial's final witness and gave evidence for a marathon eight days.
On Tuesday, Justice Beale said the jury must assess Ms Patterson's evidence in the same way as they would the evidence of all other witnesses.
"In choosing to give evidence, she undertook to tell the truth," he said.
Justice Beale said if the jury found her evidence to be true, they must find her not guilty.
He said if they thought it might be true, there was reasonable doubt.
If they did not believe her, Justice Beale said the jury had to put her testimony aside and decide if the prosecution had proven the rest of its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Beale previously told the court his instructions would take at least two days.
On Tuesday, the judge revisited several moments in the trial, highlighting "inconsistencies" in evidence given by some witnesses.
Justice Beale said in his evidence, lunch survivor Ian Wilkinson told the jury Ms Patterson had said she had cancer, but in later cross-examination it was brought to the jury's attention that he had told police she had suspected cancer.
He also pointed to evidence given by Erin Patterson's sister-in-law, Tanya Patterson, about when Erin's relationship with her husband, Simon, had deteriorated.
During the trial, Tanya Patterson described Erin and Simon's relationship as "quite good" for many years, but that their relationship started to deteriorate before the fateful lunch.
In cross-examination, she was questioned over the dates of when she noticed that deterioration, which the court heard was different from the timeline she gave in preliminary hearings.
Justice Beale also highlighted inconsistencies in evidence that had been heard about certain topics or events. Those included whether Erin Patterson tended to pick and eat wild mushrooms, how much of the beef Wellington Erin and Gail Patterson had eaten, and when Erin Patterson became ill.
Justice Beale noted that the jury may identify what they believed were other inconsistencies in evidence given by other prosecution witnesses or the accused, and that that was a matter for them.
At the outset of Tuesday's hearing, Justice Beale said he would deliver his instructions in three parts — the principles of the law, the issues jurors would need to decide, and the procedure to be followed when they did decide on their verdicts.
He told the jury that just because he did not mention some evidence or arguments by counsel, it did not mean the evidence was not important.
Similarly, he said his references to particular pieces of evidence or arguments did not mean they were more important than others.
"You must consider all of the evidence, not just the parts of it that I have mentioned," Justice Beale said.
"The same goes for the arguments of counsel."
Justice Beale also said the jury should not be prejudiced against the accused by the fact that Ms Patterson had admitted to lying or disposing of evidence.
"This is a court of law, not a court of morals," he said.
He further warned the panel to steer clear of outside influences.
"If any of that has reached your eyes or ears or does so in the coming days, you must be particularly careful not to let it influence you in any way.
"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."