Kristin Smart ruling: Judge denies Paul Flores’ request to dismiss murder case

In a brief hearing Friday morning, Judge Jacquelyn Duffy denied a defense motion to dismiss the murder case against Paul Flores, who is accused of killing Kristin Smart.

The court motion to dismiss the case was filed last month by Flores’ lawyers, Robert and Sarah Sanger. It argued the case against Flores lacks credible evidence.

The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office filed an opposition Monday, arguing against the motion and relying on San Luis Obispo Superior Court Jude Craig Van Rooyen’s September ruling after evidence and arguments were presented in a 22-day preliminary hearing. The defense responded to the opposition Wednesday.

Flores is accused of killing Smart while they were both students at Cal Poly in 1996.

Flores was the last person seen with Smart after an off-campus party in San Luis Obispo and has long been a person-of-interest in the case. He was arrested on suspicion of her murder in April 2021. Ruben Flores, his father, is charged with accessory after the fact. Smart’s body has never been found.

What happened at the hearing

During the hearing, the Sangers said the evidence presented by the prosecution adds up to “speculation” and does not provide probable or reasonable cause for an arrest. The main piece of evidence called into question was the cadaver dogs.

The Sangers argued that the dogs’ handlers were not equipped to accurately attest to the dogs’ expertise, calling some of the handlers’ testimonies vague and lengthy. He said while he respects that these dogs and their handlers help law enforcement often with search and rescue, they are do not have evidentiary value in a murder trial.

“An alert is not evidence. The dogs are a tool to help find evidence,” Robert Sanger said. “Dog behavior is not evidence.”

Cadaver dogs specially trained to smell human remains alerted authorities at multiple locations of interest, including Flores’ dorm room, soon after Smart disappeared.

San Luis Obispo Deputy District Attorney Christopher Peuvrelle responded by adding several items to the record that he said backed up the dogs’ expertise.

Robert Sanger also said the radar showing anomalies underneath the deck of Ruben Flores’ Arroyo Grande home and the soil samples that were tested for human remains were not conclusive that is was a burial site, especially since it lacked DNA evidence. The District Attorney’s Office referred to Van Rooyen’s September ruling, which included testimony from a serotologist who said that human blood was found in the soil beneath the deck.

Judge Duffy also read evidence found in the preliminary hearing, which stated that there was a stain in the soil in the area of an anomaly found underneath the deck, which archaeologists said was indicative of human remains. That sample was the soil that later tested positive for human blood, though no DNA was found. She also read aloud the inconsistencies from Flores around his interactions with Smart at the party and how he received a black eye.

Robert Sanger also questioned Jennifer Hudson’s 2002 testimony. He wrote in the dismissal motion that it was told to a friend while intoxicated and then brought to light by the popular podcast “Your Own Backyard” by Chris Lambert, which was designed to convict Flores.

Robert Sanger also argued that witnesses during the preliminary hearing — including detective Clint Cole, a lead investigator on the case — wore purple in solidarity with a social media campaign to convict Flores. He said it speaks to the issues the defense raised when they wanted the District Attorney’s Office to be recused from the case for wearing purple ties.

Peuvrelle also noted that the defense referred to parts of a transcript of a 1996 video of investigators interviewing Flores that did not get submitted into evidence when arguing about Flores’ Miranda Rights being violated.

The prosecution submitted the first 48 minutes of the video, so Puevrelle said that is all that can be used in court.

Robert Sanger said they referred to the full video because context is important and should be considered. In the opposition Puevrelle filed Monday, he noted that Flores was “never handcuffed, never in custody and participated voluntarily the entire time,” so his rights could not have been violated.

The defense’s motion to dismiss the case was ultimately denied.

What’s next in the Paul Flores case

A pretrial conference is scheduled for Feb. 2 at 8:30 a.m in Department 5 at San Luis Obispo Superior Court. The case is scheduled to go to trial on April 25.