Mushroom Killer Appeals; Prosecutors Seek Life Without Parole

Defense lawyer Richard Edney's first ground of appeal was that jurors were sequestered in the same hotel as a police witness and members of the prosecution team. "This was a very serious breach of sequestration," Edney told the court.

Prosecutor Brendan Kissane said there was nothing behind it. "There was no evidence to support that ground," he said, adding: "There was no actual contact between any juror and any other person."

Another defense lawyer argued there was no evidence Patterson had read online posts reporting death cap sightings near the towns of Loch and Outtrim. A telecommunications expert testified at trial that Patterson's phone connected to towers near those towns; the defense said that showed only that her phone had possibly been in the area. "That in and of itself, in our submission, illustrates just how dangerous and unfair that evidence was," the lawyer said.

Prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams countered that the evidence showed Patterson had an opportunity to deliberately source death cap mushrooms shortly before the lunch.

The defense also argued that prosecutor Nanette Rogers' cross-examination of Patterson over five days had been "unfair and oppressive," and that trial judge Christopher Bale caused "unfair prejudice" by allowing evidence from Patterson's Facebook "friends."

A further ground was that prosecutors opened their case saying there was no evidence of motive, then closed it suggesting Patterson's animosity toward her husband's parents and the wider Patterson family was the motive. Pressed by Justice Lesley Taylor, the defense said it was not alleging deliberate professional misconduct: "It is certainly not a direct allegation or suggestion of that, but what is clear in our submission from the reading of all of the material is that where things started and where it finished by the end of the prosecution case were different."