Trigger warning: This article discusses murder and sexual assault
Paul Flores filed an appellate brief in the California Courts of Appeal on Oct. 21. In the appeal, Flores alleged his 14th Amendment due process rights were violated during the trial for Smart’s murder.
After returning from an off-campus party, Smart was last seen walking to her South Mountain Residence Hall with Flores on May 25, 1996. Flores was officially convicted of Smart’s murder in 2022.
The appellate brief alleges a series of errors marred Flores’ trial. The brief specifically highlighted Juror 273, whom the appellant identified as biased based on an emotional mid-trail outburst, mid-trial anxiety attacks, discussing the case with the bailiff and friends, and admitting her neutrality wavered during the trial.
The appellate requested the removal of this juror, which was later denied because “the juror denied that counsel’s actions would impact her ability to be fair and impartial.”
Based on this juror’s specific reactions throughout the trial, the brief contends, “if even a single juror lacks the ability to be fair and impartial, the resulting conviction violates the accused’s constitutional right to jury trial and requires per se reversal.”
The appeal argues Flores did not receive a “trial by 12 fair and impartial jurors.”
Additionally, the brief argues there was no evidence Flores sexually assaulted Smart and the court “admitted highly prejudicial testimony from two women who claimed he had drugged and raped them.”
Moreover, the appeal describes Trevor Boelter’s witness testimony as “improper opinion testimony” with the recitation of hearsay. Hearsay means the statement was made out of court and cannot be submitted for evidence, according to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.
With this testimony, along with the prosecutor “strengthen[ing] his theory” with a “ball gag photograph to portray [Flores] as a violent sexual predator,” the appeal argues at least one juror may have had reasonable doubt about Flores’ guilt.
Beyond these claims, the appeal addresses there were various prejudicial errors made, which “significantly increased the chances of a first-degree murder verdict based on attempted rape of an intoxicated person.”
The appellant requests that the court reverse or at least reduce his murder conviction to second-degree murder.
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s office must respond to the appeal by Nov. 10, 20 days from the filing.