Kristin Smart's killer appeals sentence, claims unfair trial
The man convicted of killing Stockton native Kristin Smart is appealing his sentence. His legal team is arguing that he did not have a fair trial due to errors during the proceedings.
Paul Flores was convicted of murdering his Cal Poly classmate, Smart, in 1996. Smart disappeared during her freshman year on campus and witnesses who testified during Flores' 2022 murder trial in Monterey County said the last time they saw Smart alive was with Flores.
He has long held that he walked Smart back to her campus dorm on the night she disappeared and had no knowledge of what happened to her.
Flores was arrested in 2021 for Smart's murder while in the commission of or attempt to commit rape. Twelve jurors found him guilty, and he was sentenced in 2023 to 25 years to life in prison.
His defense team now argues that mistakes made during the trial, while seemingly minor on their own, added up to a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The appeal was argued by Flores' attorney, Solomon Wollack, in the sixth division of the California Second Appellate District on Thursday. Wollack appeared virtually and spoke for about 40 minutes on the appeal to judges based in Ventura.
Wollack organized their appeal into three issues that included calling it a mistake to allow an alleged emotional juror to stay on the jury. Wollack outlined how the reaction to the testimony and evidence proved the juror could not be impartial and therefore violated Flores' right to a fair trial.
In a rebuttal, concerns about the juror's emotional displays were the main point addressed. The attorney representing "The People" in the case noted, "We don't expect jurors to be robots."
In agreement, one of the appellate judges said the case was "unusual" and that emotional responses from jurors were supported in the law, in most cases.
His appeal also contends that testimony from two women alleging Flores had sexually assaulted them in the past was unfairly admitted in court. Another point outlined in the appeal and the argument was based on witness testimony that Wollack said was hearsay and should not have been admitted.
Legal experts note that appeals like this are often a long shot, but they say if Flores' lawyers can prove these errors affected the jury, the argument could carry weight.
"Anytime you're filing an appeal, it can look like you're grasping for straws, because you only have really one opportunity to file the appeal. So, when a decision is made to appeal a conviction, they really want to include everything that they can, because if they fail to include it and they should have included it in the appellate record, that could be malpractice on behalf of the attorney," said Sacramento Attorney Michael Wise, not affiliated with the case.
The California Court of Appeals decision will be made within 90 days.