A Supreme Court Judge says that the so-called 'CSI effect' was in play when a jury accepted the evidence of State Forensic Pathologist Donald Ritchey in a murder trial in 2021.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Justice Gregory Geason made his comments in a dissenting decision in which an appeal by Natalie Maher was dismissed 2-1 by Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal.
Justices Michael Brett and Stephen Estcourt rejected the two grounds of Maher's appeal.
Ms Maher, 48, was unanimously found guilty by a jury in 2021 of the murder of her mother Veronica Corstorphine, 71, at Keane Street, South Launceston, on October 3, 2019.
The jury accepted evidence that Maher smothered her mother with a pillow. She was sentenced to a 23 year jail term but lodged an appeal on two grounds in December 2021
In the appeal Maher suggested that the trial judge Justice Robert Pearce erred in law by allowing the jury to hear a persistent and robust record of interview with Tasmania Police detective acting inspector Bob Baker.
Judges found that while at times overbearing the interview was admissible.
"My impression is that the appellant [Maher] did not appear to be oppressed or overborne at any relevant time," Justice Estcourt said.
The second ground of appeal was that Justice Pearce erred in law in ruling that the opinion evidence of Dr Ritchey, was admissible in the trial.
Dr Ritchey, who was regarded as an expert witness in the trial, gave evidence that he performed more than 50 murder autopsies in New Mexico.
Dr Ritchey's evidence was that "someone else was involved in the [Ms Corstorphine's] death".
His opinion was a synthesis of information from his autopsy of Ms Corstorphine's body and observations from police body worn camera footage on the day her body was found on October 29, 2019.
Justice Geason's dissenting opinion looked at the reliance that the jury may have put on Dr Ritchey's evidence.
"Expert witnesses enjoy a special status and in jury trials a powerful one," he said.
"Television has elevated the experts role to one carrying a degree of infallibility in the minds of the public, a capacity to provide answers to the most vexing issues of fact."
Justice Geason quoted a legal decision which explained the 'CSI effect' as being the reference to the atmosphere of scientific confidence evoked in the imagination of average juror by descriptions of DNA findings.
"As the name suggests the 'CSI effect' relates to the popularity of the American TV program CSI [Crime Scene Investigation]," the decision said.
"The show follows a number of detectives and forensic scientists as they solve serious crimes.
"One of the main features of the show is it regular use of forensic science to accurately identify offenders.
"Science is portrayed as the overarching truth that exposes the lies of the offender and provides certainty to an investigation."
Justice Geason said the status of expert witnesses meant: "there was a real and obvious risk in this case that the jury would use the challenged evidence as a shortcut to the conclusion that the cause of death was foul play without undertaking their own reasoning process."
"That risk was sufficiently real to require the conclusion that there was a significant prejudicial effect attaching to this evidence.
"The inevitable consequence...was that the jury would presume the appellant was the person responsible for the death."
Admission of Dr Ritchey's evidence created a risk of significant prejudice to the appellant [Maher], he said.
"It's reception fatally infected the fairness of the trial. The appropriate order is to allow the appeal and order a retrial."
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
- Bookmark www.examiner.com.au
- Make sure you are signed up for our breaking and regular headlines newsletters
- Follow us on Twitter: @examineronline
- Follow us on Instagram: @examineronline
- Follow us on Google News: The Examiner
Nick Clark
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for The Examiner. My journalism career has clicked over 34 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for The Examiner. My journalism career has clicked over 34 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
