The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is asking a judge to dismiss Pamela Smart’s latest effort to overturn her conviction in her husband’s murder trial more than 30 years ago.Smart filed a petition in January claiming certain evidence misled jurors during her 1991 murder trial. Since then, both sides have filed numerous court motions and responses.One piece of evidence prosecutors used was transcripts of audio tapes played during the trial. Smart’s attorney argues the transcripts may have biased jurors’ interpretation of the recordings, citing a recent study about “expectation bias” when audio is paired with written transcription.After months of back-and-forth court filings, the state is now asking a judge to dismiss Smart’s latest attempt to overturn her conviction, arguing her claims fail to explain the legal relevance of the study referenced in her petition and calling the study “manufactured” for this case. Legal experts say Smart must overcome the state’s argument that jurors were instructed to rely only on the audio recordings when considering the evidence, something they say may contradict Smart’s claims.”We presume that when jurors are instructed to do a thing, they do that thing,” said Daniel Pi, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire. “So, if the judge told them at the time, ‘Do not consider the transcript as authoritative. It’s just a helpful guide. The authoritative evidence is the audio itself,’ well, that tends to cut against what Smart is now arguing.”Pi added that even with the new filing from Smart, things may be leaning in the state’s favor.”If I had to guess, it’s more likely than not that the state will prevail in its motion to dismiss,” Pi said.In response to the state’s latest motion to dismiss, Smart’s attorney, Matthew Zernhelt, gave sister station WMUR a written statement:”As opposed to the story as presented in movies and sensationalized media, the actual trial had meaningfully little evidence. Now, we see that the evidence that was used, and that the verdict rested on, was effectively manufactured. The State has made some troubling mischaracterizations of the law in an attempt to keep the new revelations and science from getting its due review. We are simply seeking an evidentiary hearing as daylight is the best venue for the review of injustice; this is not something the State should rebuke. Ultimately, the error found here warrants a new trial. I would encourage any skeptics to read the motions filed so far in forming their opinion.”The Attorney General’s Office declined to comment further on the ongoing litigation. Smart is serving a sentence of life in prison without parole.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is asking a judge to dismiss Pamela Smart’s latest effort to overturn her conviction in her husband’s murder trial more than 30 years ago.
Smart filed a petition in January claiming certain evidence misled jurors during her 1991 murder trial. Since then, both sides have filed numerous court motions and responses.
One piece of evidence prosecutors used was transcripts of audio tapes played during the trial. Smart’s attorney argues the transcripts may have biased jurors’ interpretation of the recordings, citing a recent study about “expectation bias” when audio is paired with written transcription.
After months of back-and-forth court filings, the state is now asking a judge to dismiss Smart’s latest attempt to overturn her conviction, arguing her claims fail to explain the legal relevance of the study referenced in her petition and calling the study “manufactured” for this case.
Legal experts say Smart must overcome the state’s argument that jurors were instructed to rely only on the audio recordings when considering the evidence, something they say may contradict Smart’s claims.
“We presume that when jurors are instructed to do a thing, they do that thing,” said Daniel Pi, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire. “So, if the judge told them at the time, ‘Do not consider the transcript as authoritative. It’s just a helpful guide. The authoritative evidence is the audio itself,’ well, that tends to cut against what Smart is now arguing.”
Pi added that even with the new filing from Smart, things may be leaning in the state’s favor.
“If I had to guess, it’s more likely than not that the state will prevail in its motion to dismiss,” Pi said.
In response to the state’s latest motion to dismiss, Smart’s attorney, Matthew Zernhelt, gave sister station WMUR a written statement:
“As opposed to the story as presented in movies and sensationalized media, the actual trial had meaningfully little evidence. Now, we see that the evidence that was used, and that the verdict rested on, was effectively manufactured. The State has made some troubling mischaracterizations of the law in an attempt to keep the new revelations and science from getting its due review. We are simply seeking an evidentiary hearing as daylight is the best venue for the review of injustice; this is not something the State should rebuke. Ultimately, the error found here warrants a new trial. I would encourage any skeptics to read the motions filed so far in forming their opinion.”
The Attorney General’s Office declined to comment further on the ongoing litigation.
Smart is serving a sentence of life in prison without parole.
