More than three decades after one of America’s most widely publicized murder cases, Pamela Smart is once again asking a New Hampshire court to overturn her conviction.
Smart, now 58, appeared remotely in court on July 20 as her attorneys argued that crucial evidence presented during her 1991 trial was inaccurate and unfairly influenced the jury that convicted her. A judge is expected to decide within the next 30 to 60 days whether her latest petition can move forward.
Attorneys Challenge Key Trial Evidence
Smart’s legal team filed a habeas corpus petition earlier this year, arguing that her constitutional rights were violated during her original trial.
At the center of the petition are transcripts of secretly recorded conversations that prosecutors introduced as evidence more than 30 years ago.
According to Smart’s attorneys, the written transcripts included several highly incriminating words and phrases—such as references to having her husband killed—that they claim cannot actually be heard on the original recordings.
Her lawyers argue that providing jurors with those transcripts effectively shaped how they interpreted unclear audio recordings, preventing them from making an independent assessment of the evidence.
Defense Says Jury Was Guided Toward a Conclusion
During Monday’s hearing, attorney Matthew Zernhelt argued that modern research demonstrates how written transcripts can influence what listeners believe they hear when audio recordings are unclear.
The defense contends that jurors were unintentionally directed toward a particular interpretation instead of evaluating the recordings on their own.
In addition to challenging the transcripts, Smart’s attorneys argue that extensive media coverage before the trial affected the fairness of the proceedings. They also claim jurors received improper legal instructions and that Smart’s life-without-parole sentence as an accomplice was imposed incorrectly under state law.
Prosecutors Say Claims Do Not Justify a New Trial
State attorneys urged the judge to dismiss the petition.
Prosecutors argued that many of the issues raised have already been addressed during previous appeals or could have been challenged years earlier.
They also maintain that Smart’s legal team has not demonstrated that any alleged problems with the transcripts affected the jury’s verdict or changed the outcome of the trial.
A Case That Captivated the Nation
Pamela Smart was convicted in 1991 for her role in the 1990 killing of her husband, Gregg Smart, after prosecutors alleged she persuaded her teenage student, William “Billy” Flynn, to carry out the shooting.
Flynn later admitted he was the shooter and testified against Smart after accepting a plea agreement. He and three teenage accomplices have since completed their prison sentences and been released.
Smart has consistently challenged her conviction through numerous appeals over the years. However, in 2024 she publicly acknowledged her responsibility in Gregg Smart’s death after decades of denying involvement in planning the crime.
Judge Expected to Rule Soon
Smart, who is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York, attended Monday’s hearing virtually.
The judge took the matter under advisement and indicated a ruling on whether the petition may proceed is expected within 30 to 60 days.
If the petition is denied, Smart’s conviction and sentence will remain unchanged. If allowed to proceed, the court would then consider the merits of her request for a new trial.
