16-07-2025
What it's like being a criminal lawyer in the true-crime boom
From the moment Erin Patterson stepped into the courtroom for her murder trial, there were five high-profile podcasts following her every move.
In the hours and days after Patterson was found guilty on three counts of murder, a flurry of follow-up content was revealed. ABC announced a drama Toxic, based on the case; Nine announced they already had a one-hour documentary titled Murder by Mushroom, ready for airing. This is in addition to a Stan doco, announced back in February, months before the case went to trial.
This obsession with true-crime content — be it fact-based or fictionalised — is not new, nor is it localised to Australia. The Australian's Teacher's Pet podcast has been credited with bringing attention to Chris Dawson's crimes, but experts warned the attention threatened his right to a fair trial. In the US, Ryan Murphy's Monster series on the Menendez brothers brought attention to the pair's parole pleas, despite their family claiming it was 'riddled with mistruths'.
The flood of content presents a peculiar conundrum for criminal lawyers, who find themselves in the middle of the media melee while also trying to give their clients the fairest treatment possible.
Lauren Cassimatis is the founder and principal lawyer at Melbourne's Gallant Law, with more than 20 years' experience practising criminal law. We spoke to her about what it's like to be a criminal defence lawyer in the era of trial by entertainment.
We have a lot of media approaching us wanting to talk about cases. There'll be some lawyers that attempt to get in the media and make that commentary, and they need to really think about how it might affect their clients and breach confidentiality obligations.
The other thing is that we're all human, so the media might even skew us in terms of our thoughts or perspectives.
So we need to detach from what's being put out there and just really focus on what we're trained to do, which is analyse the strengths and weaknesses of a case, develop a sound case theory, take into account our clients' instructions, and direct that strategy.
You gotta turn your mind off from publications and portrayals and just really focus on trusting your instincts as a lawyer, and your intuition, and just focusing on the case at hand.
I think that's what our ethical obligation is. We can't get caught up in the drama and the glamour of it all. We can't throw our clients under the bus for a bit of media.
I am, and I'm also surprised by the fascination with the case. I don't know what it is.
There've been plenty of murder cases I've been involved in that have been just as interesting. I don't know what it is. It almost feels comical, like we're being entertained by it, rather than [it being] seen as educational.
I think so — there are some offenders out there that, whether they're found guilty or not, they become celebrities. People are fascinated by them because, for some reason, people have been entertained by them.
In terms of it compromising the right to a fair trial, especially from a victim's perspective, I think it's dangerous. What does their future hold for them?
I'm a big advocate for supporting reintegration into society and supporting offenders' rehabilitation; I think everyone deserves a second chance.
Why are some people not given that second chance?
I don't think it takes much, to be honest, because I think most people have the mentality that where there's smoke there's fire. So, if the perpetrator has already been charged, it's hard to get people to detach and focus on the weaknesses of the case, while also trying to get them to understand that there might be more to a case than what is presented in the media.
I had a client where it was very high-profile in the media leading up to the trial, and the jury were directed to not do their own research, but they still decided to do it on their own time because they were fascinated by being part of this "Whodunnit?" case.
As soon as this was revealed, the whole trial was aborted and we had to start again with a brand new jury.
Another example, I represented a lady charged with manslaughter against her husband. She was a true victim of domestic violence by him. She came into court, very timid, very broken about what happened — but the media love a 'Black Widow' story.
So there were drawings of her looking very sexy, very glamorous, nothing like what she looked like in reality. [There were] articles about her trying to steal the land he owned and murdering him for money. That definitely was an issue for us in the trial. We had to address that to the jury because it was all over the media.
It depends which side of the fence you're on. If the offender is portrayed as a victim, in terms of some history and background to what happened, it could have a negative impact on the community, [especially] if they feel that the experience of the victim is being undermined and not appreciating the gravity of offending.
But, on the other hand, if you're a defence lawyer like me, or if you've got someone in your family that's been accused of a crime or been through the justice system, sometimes if the offender is being portrayed sympathetically, it helps you see things from a position of empathy.
So I think it could be detrimental in terms of really creating a mockery of whoever's involved in it, whether it's the victim or the offender.
It definitely gives the wrong idea of how the justice system operates, the court procedure, the criminal procedure and process. It gives people false hopes about avenues open to them and timing.
For example, shows like NCIS, where they get results back from the lab instantly: it just does not happen in reality. You've got forensic centres that the police rely on that could spend months, even years, trying to analyse evidence, whether it's technological devices or DNA.
Also, the way trials are run, the way barristers jump up and down at the bar table, that rarely happens in reality. In fact, what we know is barristers that exercise polite persuasion in court get further than the ones that put on a performance, especially aggressive performances.
The same with "approaching the bench", which happens often in American shows — it doesn't happen here in Australia. So clients often expect you to have a moment with the judge at the bench.
It's a really hard one, because the law states that the public can have access to a trial. The public ought to know what's going on in the courtroom. So you can't necessarily stop the media from reporting on a case. The public needs to know what's happening.
There are select cases where you can successfully apply for suppression orders, especially when someone's safety is at risk, but I don't think you can stop it.
I think people are so enthralled by true crime, I don't think we'll ever be able to stop it or contain it.
It's just a matter of educating people to appreciate that what you see in the media isn't necessarily reality. I'll read media reports about my own cases later, and I laugh because I go, "OK, yeah, that's right, that fits, true," but then there's some other bits that are missing.
