Paul Flores files for appeal of his murder conviction based on alleged due process and impartial jury violations

MONTEREY COUNTY, Calif. – Paul Flores, the man convicted in the 1996 death of Cal Poly student Kristin Smart and sentenced to 25 years to life, filed an appeal of his conviction from Monterey County Superior Court Monday alleging violations of his Constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury.

According to the appellate brief, submitted to the California Court of Appeal's Second Appellate District, Division Six Monday, Oct. 21 of this year, three particular errors during the trial denied Flores his Sixth and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

First, Flores' attorney Solomon Wollack details in the brief that the court denied his client's requests to remove a particular juror, identified as Juror No. 273 in the filing, for the following actions:

• Had an "emotional midtrial outburst" during testimony delivered on behalf of the prosecution by Cindy Arrington while she described decomposition rings that dead bodies produce when releasing bodily fluids into the surrounding soil
• Had two other "midtrial anxiety attacks which she specifically blamed on defense counsel"
• Discussed the case with the bailiff and friends
• Revealed to the bailiff that her neutrality had wavered during the course of the trial

The denial of those four requests to remove Juror No. 273 during the trial resulted in a violation of Flores' right to an impartial jury guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution and due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment and that those violations are grounds to reverse Flores' conviction argued the brief.

Second, during the murder trial, testimony was admitted from two women who claimed Flores had drugged and raped each of them, one in 2008 and the other in 2011, during separate incidents, and another witness, Trevor Boelter, testified during the trial that during the last night Smart was seen alive, she appeared to exhibit behavior that reminded him of his own experience after being given a date rape drug explained the brief.

While the trial court acknowledged at the time that there was no "direct evidence" that Smart had been sexually assaulted, as her body has never been recovered, it ultimately ruled that, "the unique circumstances of this case, where it is impossible to produce direct evidence of a sexual assault but where the People intend to introduce circumstantial evidence of an assault" allowed the inclusion of the all three people's testimony detailed the brief.

According to the brief, there was not enough evidence to justify the admission of the testimony for an uncharged offense nor a felony murder verdict based on a rape or attempted rape.

Premeditation or planning of a murder is a crucial part of determining the type or degree of a murder charge.

Flores was ultimately found guilty of murder in the first degree.

Lastly, the brief argued that the trial court gave two erroneous instructions to jurors on attempted rape of an intoxicated person which was used by the prosecution to justify the first-degree felony murder charge.

According to the brief, the instructions removed the specific intent element and allowed jurors reasonably infer an attempted rape of an intoxicated person if they believed provided testimony that Smart was too intoxicated to resist.

Ultimately, the brief asked the court to reverse Flores' conviction entirely or at least reduce Flores' murder conviction to a crime of second-degree murder.