BOSTON (RTWNews) — Pamela Smart, who is currently serving life in prison for orchestrating the murder of her husband by a teenage student in 1990, is seeking to overturn her conviction citing multiple constitutional violations. This petition for habeas corpus relief was filed on Monday in New York, where she is held at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, as well as in New Hampshire, where the crime took place.
Jason Ott, part of Smart's legal team, expressed concerns about the integrity of her trial. Ms. Smart’s trial unfolded in an environment that no court had previously confronted — wall-to-wall media coverage that blurred the line between allegation and evidence, he stated. This petition challenges whether a fair adversarial process took place.
This appeal is a response to New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte's recent decision to deny a request for a sentence reduction hearing, affirming that Smart's case did not warrant such consideration.
The New York State Department of Corrections did not respond promptly to media inquiries, while New Hampshire's attorney general maintained that Smart received a fair trial and that her convictions were lawfully obtained.
In the new petition, Smart's attorneys assert that the jury was misled through inaccurate transcripts of secretly recorded conversations involving Smart, which allegedly included words that were not present in the actual recordings. For example, they claim the transcripts contained the words killed and murder in contexts that were not supported by the audio.
Attorney Matthew Zernhelt commented, Modern science confirms what common sense has always told us: when people are handed a script, they inevitably hear the words they are shown.
Further complicating matters, the petition argues that the pervasive media scrutiny and improper jury instructions tainted the verdict, making it difficult for jurors to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at the trial.
Smart, who was 22 at the time of her husband's murder, had engaged in a relationship with a 15-year-old student, William Flynn. The murder case drew significant media attention and was one of the first high-profile legal cases involving a sexual affair between a school employee and a minor. Flynn, along with another teenager, was convicted of murder, while Smart maintained her innocence as an accomplice.
In a recent video, Smart acknowledged her past avoidance of full responsibility for her husband’s death, revealing her internal struggles throughout the years. Given the notoriety of the case, it remains to be seen how these developments will influence her quest for justice.
Jason Ott, part of Smart's legal team, expressed concerns about the integrity of her trial. Ms. Smart’s trial unfolded in an environment that no court had previously confronted — wall-to-wall media coverage that blurred the line between allegation and evidence, he stated. This petition challenges whether a fair adversarial process took place.
This appeal is a response to New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte's recent decision to deny a request for a sentence reduction hearing, affirming that Smart's case did not warrant such consideration.
The New York State Department of Corrections did not respond promptly to media inquiries, while New Hampshire's attorney general maintained that Smart received a fair trial and that her convictions were lawfully obtained.
In the new petition, Smart's attorneys assert that the jury was misled through inaccurate transcripts of secretly recorded conversations involving Smart, which allegedly included words that were not present in the actual recordings. For example, they claim the transcripts contained the words killed and murder in contexts that were not supported by the audio.
Attorney Matthew Zernhelt commented, Modern science confirms what common sense has always told us: when people are handed a script, they inevitably hear the words they are shown.
Further complicating matters, the petition argues that the pervasive media scrutiny and improper jury instructions tainted the verdict, making it difficult for jurors to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at the trial.
Smart, who was 22 at the time of her husband's murder, had engaged in a relationship with a 15-year-old student, William Flynn. The murder case drew significant media attention and was one of the first high-profile legal cases involving a sexual affair between a school employee and a minor. Flynn, along with another teenager, was convicted of murder, while Smart maintained her innocence as an accomplice.
In a recent video, Smart acknowledged her past avoidance of full responsibility for her husband’s death, revealing her internal struggles throughout the years. Given the notoriety of the case, it remains to be seen how these developments will influence her quest for justice.
