Flores attorneys ask judge to move Kristin Smart murder trial due to pretrial publicity
Lawyers for Paul and Ruben Flores filed a 500-page change-of-venue motion late Wednesday, asking the court to move the Kristin Smart murder trial outside of San Luis Obispo County.
The team claims it is not possible for the two to receive a fair trial in San Luis Obispo. Smart’s disappearance has been “a topic of emotional concern in the San Luis Obispo County community since 1996,” and in those near 26 years, the community has been continuously exposed to news articles, memorials and billboards about the case, the motion said.
Attitudes of community members toward Paul Flores and his family have been “vicious and relentless,” the defense claims, and the press, private individuals, bloggers, website managers and public relations efforts by the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s Offices contributed to it.
Paul Flores is alleged to have killed Kristin Smart after an off-campus Cal Poly party in May 1996. He was the last person seen with the Cal Poly student.
Ruben Flores, Paul Flores’ father, is charged with accessory after the fact. The two were arrested in April 2021 — 25 years after Smart’s disappearance. Smart’s body has never been found.
Five factors are evaluated when a judge considers changing a trial’s venue: The nature and gravity of the offense, the nature and extent of the news coverage, the size of the community, the status of the defendant in the community, and the popularity and prominence of the victim.
Local news coverage of case implicated Flores, motion says
San Luis Obispo County has less than half the population of the average California county, and it being a smaller county weighs in favor of a venue change, the motion said. It also said the court must take into account the saturation of the publicity around the case in the county. The case is so “embedded in the public consciousness” that Paul and Ruben Flores would not be able to find an impartial jury, so much so that it would be “futile” to attempt to screen jurors in the county.
The motion starts by laying out the scope of the local news coverage, claiming the extent — and also how some sentences were written — implicated Paul Flores. Paul Flores has been featured in news coverage as the sole suspect in Smart’s disappearance since 1996, and there has been so much local media coverage of the case, “it would not be practical to attach all or even a substantial portion” to the motion, the document said.
The document notes that local news coverage routinely implicated Paul Flores by writing Flores was the last person seen with Smart in 1996 and was, is, or has continued to be a person of interest in the case. It also said there was extensive coverage of the arrests by local news, citing The Tribune’s reporting of community members reacting to the arrests as an example, and noted the press conferences held by Sheriff Ian Parkinson and District Attorney Dan Dow after the arrests and before the arraignment featured large photographs of Kristin Smart and Paul and Ruben Flores being arrested.
It noted periodic stories local media wrote that gave an overview of the case, and noted the coverage of vigils, memorials and the Kristin Smart Scholarship. It also mentioned the coverage of the billboard asking for information on Smart’s disappearance and listed articles where a photo of the billboard was featured.
Local media paid “particular attention” to the preliminary hearing, the motion said, with The Tribune writing detailed summaries of testimonies, KSBY posting summaries on its YouTube page and other local media reporting on evidence shown in the hearing.
Publicity of Smart case made Flores a ‘pariah,’ lawyers claim
The defense also claims kristinsmart.org implicates Paul Flores by naming him as the only suspect and last person to be seen with her, and saying that he “continues to be uncooperative and is hiding behind the 5th Amendment.” It also claimed Chris Lambert, creator of the “Your Own Backyard” podcast, has made a career out of Smart’s disappearance and advancing theories as to why Paul Flores is guilty. It also claims “Justice for Kristin Smart” social media campaigns are pushing for Paul Flores to be convicted.
“Not only has (Paul Flores) been characterized as the only suspect, but he has been disparaged and demonized,” the motion said.
It also said Sheriff Parkinson, District Attorney Dow and members of their offices wore purple “at the direction of” the Justice for Kristin Smart Facebook Page, an issued raised during the defense’s unsuccessful attempt to dismiss the case.
The motion lists harassment the Flores family has face since 1996, including fliers with Paul Flores’ face on it, painted rocks with “Surrender Paul Flores” written on them, and honking horns outside their Arroyo Grande home. It also notes and instance where Ruben and Susan Flores, Paul Flores’ mother, were eating at a restuarant in Shell Beach and a woman yelled “You are the parents of a killer!” to them.
“The nature and intensity of the depictions of Paul Flores as the only suspect establish his status in the community as not only an accused but a pariah,” the motion said, adding that characterization alone requires a change of venue.
The nature of the offense — murder in the course of rape — is one of the most grave charges that can be alleged, the motion said, and a guilty verdict could come with life in prison, so the stakes are too high to risk an unfair trial.
The trial is scheduled to begin April 25, but if the change-of-venue motion is granted, it could push back the case for months, potentially a year.
The Tribune identified just three other cases in SLO County where the trial did move, with the most recent being convicted murderer Rex Krebs’ trial in 2001.
A status hearing for the case is scheduled March 16, and the change of venue hearing is scheduled for March 30.
This story was originally published March 10, 2022 at 9:53 AM.
