Judge moves Kristin Smart murder trial out of SLO County
A San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge decided to move the Kristin Smart murder trial out of SLO County in a court hearing Wednesday morning, saying its unlikely a jury here can provide fair judgment in the case.
Judge Craig Van Rooyen made the decision regarding the change-of-venue motion filed earlier this month by lawyers for Paul and Ruben Flores. Paul Flores is alleged to have killed Kristin Smart after an off-campus Cal Poly party in May 1996. Ruben Flores, Paul Flores’ father, is alleged to have helped hide the body, which has still not been found. The two were arrested in April 2021 — 25 years after Smart’s disappearance.
There are five factors that a judge must consider when deciding whether to grant a venue change: 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.
The main factors that contributed to van Rooyen’s decision were the nature and extent of the news coverage and the size of the community. He said the case has been in the news for 25 years and has been the focus of intense scrutiny from the local community for decades. And this focus has only increased in recent years.
While most of the news coverage is factual, speculation has been quoted in some articles, van Rooyen said. He added speculation and opinions about the case have been shared on multiple media mediums, including podcasts, websites and social media.
He added that the national coverage of the case did not negate the need for a new trial location.
“I don’t think this case is discussed around dinner tables in other counties like it is in this county,” van Rooyen said.
He added that he believes the publicity in SLO County has reached a saturation point, and that there is not enough people in the county to dilute the risk of bias in potential jurors.
Quoting an article by The Tribune that chronicled the public’s reaction to the arrest of Paul and Ruben Flores in April 2021, he said it showed the community investment in the case. While he understands the support for the Smart family in the local community, he said both sides deserve a fair trial.
As to the nature and gravity of the offense, van Rooyen said the the nature of the offense weighed against a location change, but the gravity of this offense weighed in favor of it. He said the impact of the verdict would be felt throughout the county no matter what it was, but added that the case did not have gory details as Smart’s body has never been found. So on this factor, it was neutral.
The final two factors regarding the status, popularity and prominence of the defendant and victim weighed against moving the trial because Paul Flores and Kristin Smart were not known in the county until after the crime was committed. But the extent of the publicity was so overwhelming it outweighed these two factors, he said.
The trial was scheduled to begin April 25. The decision will push back the start date indefinitely as the court works to find a new location. A status conference is scheduled on April 4 to discuss a plan moving forward.
Defense’s argument for change of venue
At Wednesday’s hearing, Flores attorney Robert Sanger reiterated that position, saying the overwhelming publicity is why they need a new location.
“We have a situation that has persisted in the public’s view throughout the county and has actually accelerated in recent years,” Sanger said.
The publicity has not always been through news stories, he said, but has been pushed through the “Your Own Backyard” podcast, billboards, social media, websites and even the Sheriff’s Office itself.
Sanger specifically pointed to Chris Lambert, creator of the podcast, saying Lambert made a career out of the case and wanted to advance the idea that Paul Flores is guilty of the murder.
He said the overwhelming publicity has been focused on Paul, Ruben and Susan Flores, and the family has faced harassment over the years because of it
“It would be extremely dangerous to try to have a trial in this county,” he said
Sanger also addressed why the defense motion did not include a survey or poll in its change-of-venue motion — a standard in most motions of this kind, especially the successful ones. He said the dynamics of a survey was not feasible in the days of robocalls.
He said a poll was not necessary because the overwhelming publicity shows Paul and Ruben Flores could not receive a fair trial in SLO County.
Harold Mesick, another lawyer for the Flores family, said it will be difficult to get a fair trial in any county in California because of the publicity of the case. He said it’s important to move the trial because the publicity has been slanted.
“They want a fair trial and to hang them at dawn,” Mesick said.
Prosecution’s case to keep trial in SLO County
In their response to the defense motion, the San Luis Obispo District Attorney’s Office said the judge should deny it because the Flores team did not provide solid evidence that jurors were not able to be impartial, and the court should only reconsider the motion if jury selection proves otherwise.
In court Wednesday, Deputy District Attorney Crystal Seiler said the defense has not met the criteria to prove the claim that the two cannot receive a fair trial in SLO County. She said all of the defense’s claims are speculation.
She said that the five factors considered for a change-of-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 — have not been at the standard to move trial locations.
Seiler said the news coverage was factual, not sensational, and based on evidence. She said that the fact that Paul Flores was the last person to see Smart is not inflammatory because it would come out at trial and is a fact.
She maintained that the news coverage was not as saturated as other cases. While there has been significant coverage of this case, Seiler called the defense’s argument hyperbole, adding they say there are endless articles, but did not show that.
She noted that only four of the articles provided by the defense happened in the past six months, and said that national news coverage does not weigh in favor of change of venue.
Seiler argued said the Flores lawyers have not shown proof that potential jurors will be biased, and that simply knowing about the case does not imply a bias.
If voir dire, the questioning of potential jurors, shows they may be biased, the defense can refile a motion and the court can revisit the issue, concluding that the jurors of San Luis Obispo County can provide a fair trial for Paul and Ruben Flores.
In response, Sanger pointed out what he said were two major problems with the DA’s argument. He said the defense does not have to show evidence of prejudice, and the cases cited by the DA are all post-conviction cases, meaning they are cases that went to appeal and had to show proof of prejudice during the trial.
Judge Craig Van Rooyen, however, said post-conviction cases are in fact informative to the DA’s arguments because they provide context to the denial of change-of-venue motions.
“I don’t see how you can have a trial and have people drive by a billboard on the way to court and not be influenced one way or another,” Sanger said.
The Tribune could only identify three other cases in the past five decades where a criminal trial was moved outside the county, the most recent being the 2001 trial of Rex Krebs.
This story was originally published March 30, 2022 at 9:44 AM.
