Why a juror in the Kristin Smart murder case was focus of killer's appeal

"The man convicted of killing Cal Poly student Kristin Smart lost another bid to have his conviction overturned or reduced to second-degree murder. A three-judge appellate panel on Oct. 24 released a decision on Paul Flores' second appeal since he was found guilty of killing Smart, whose body has never been found. She was last seen on May 25, 1996, walking with Flores, a fellow first-year student, toward her dormitory on the San Luis Obispo campus after a party."

"The arguments presented at a hearing this month raised six objections to the way the 2022 trial was conducted, leading with the judge's refusal to dismiss a particular juror. Flores' attorneys said four incidents warranted the juror's removal: She spoke privately to the judge about feeling anxiety and tension while listening to cross-examination, specifically citing the aggressiveness of the defense's questioning. She started to cry during testimony about evidence of human decomposition at the home of Flores' father,"

"The judge privately questioned the juror about social media activity that included information about testing soil pH, which was an issue in the case. The juror said the post predated her selection to the panel. Upon further questioning about whether she had information on the case from any outside source, she said she had friends who listened to the podcast Your Own Backyard, which focused on the Smart case, but they know they cannot tell me anything."

A three-judge appellate panel rejected Paul Flores' second appeal seeking to overturn his 2022 conviction or reduce it to second-degree murder. Kristin Smart was last seen on May 25, 1996, walking with Flores toward her dormitory; her body has never been found. The appeal raised six objections to trial conduct, focusing on the judge's refusal to remove a juror after instances of anxiety, crying during decomposition testimony, requests for breaks during cross-examination, and social media references to soil pH and a podcast. The appellate judges found the juror credible and saw no indication of inability to decide impartially.

Read at www.mercurynews.com