What were Patterson’s grounds for appeal?published at 22:06 GMT 29 October
22:06 GMT 29 October
Erin Patterson’s appeal against her guilty conviction argues that she didn’t receive a fair trial.
Firstly, her legal team say there are bits of evidence that jurors should never have seen as they were not relevant and prejudicial. They included mobile phone tracking data that suggested she went to areas where death cap mushrooms were and Facebook messages where she complained about her in-laws.
Patterson’s lawyers also argued that other evidence was wrongly excluded such as photos that would have proved her long-time hobby of mushroom foraging.
The prosecution was also inconsistent in arguing a motive, Patterson’s team argued, starting the trial by saying they wouldn’t argue a particular motive but then in their closing address, implying that there was a motive. The five days of cross-examination she underwent was also “unfair and oppressive”, Patterson argued.
The most intriguing part of Patterson’s appeal revolves around an unusual mishap which saw the jury – as they were deliberating the verdict – stay in the same hotel as members of the prosecution, a key police witness and the media.