Will Kristin Smart case go to trial? Here’s what could happen when judge issues ruling
Testimony in the months-long preliminary hearing for the two men accused in the disappearance of Cal Poly freshman Kristin Smart came to a close Monday after 22 full days of proceedings.
So what comes next?
Superior Court Judge Craig van Rooyen is expected to issue a ruling Wednesday morning, and a local defense attorney says the judge could move the case toward trial, dismiss it — or do something in between.
Paul Flores, 44, is the last person known to have seen then-19-year-old Smart alive after walking her back from a party toward the Cal Poly campus dorms on May 24, 1996. He’s charged with a count of murder, accused of killing Smart during a rape attempt.
His father, Ruben Flores, 80, is accused of helping his son cover up the alleged crime — concealing her body under the deck of his Arroyo Grande home and recently removing the remains under the nose of law enforcement — and is charged with accessory after the fact.
The hearing, which began Aug. 2, concluded Monday with both sides resting.
The prosecution called almost three dozen witnesses. The defense called none.
Preliminary hearings are typically the first time evidence against defendants are revealed in court. Their purpose is to establish probable cause, or whether there is a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been committed. In the case of a preliminary hearing, a judge must similarly decide whether the charged offense or a lesser offense has been committed.
In the Smart case, van Rooyen will rule whether prosecutors established probable cause to hold the defendants to answer and move the case toward trail.
Probable cause is a lesser standard of proof than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard in which a jury or judge must apply to find a defendant guilty at trial.
Van Rooyen is expected to deliver his ruling at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday in San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
What could the judge do in Kristin Smart case?
The Tribune asked Jeff Stein, a local criminal defense attorney for more than 40 years and past president of the SLO Bar Association, about what the possible outcomes could be on Wednesday.
He said that if van Rooyen finds that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to give him a strong suspicion that Smart was murdered, and that Paul Flores was guilty of the murder, then Flores would be held to answer on the murder charge.
Flores is currently in custody at the San Luis Obispo County Jail, where he’s being held without bail. If held to answer, he’d likely remain there through the trial.
If van Rooyen similarly finds probable cause exists against Ruben Flores, who was released on $50,000 bail in April, then Ruben Flores would also go to trial with his son in the co-defendant case.
Stein said the preliminary hearing in the Smart case made it into court much faster than the typical murder case; similar hearings in those cases usually happen about a year after an arrest.
And if the case against the Flores’ proceeds past the preliminary hearing, it would then move to the pretrial phase, which Stein said he expects would take at least a year more or more.
“Certainly I would expect many months, and it’s not unusual for it to take many years,” Stein said. “There’s a huge amount of discovery (in the case).”
That timeframe could be prolonged by a number of factors, including if the defense motions for a change of venue, given the high local publicly of the case. Defense attorney Robert Sanger mentioned in court in April that could be a possibility. If so, San Luis Obispo County cases have historically been heard in Monterey, Santa Barbara or Kern counties, Stein said.
But if van Rooyen finds that the principal accusation — Paul Flores’ murder charge — has not been established, Stein said Tuesday that van Rooyen could dismiss it. If that occurs, Ruben Flores’ charge of accessory would also likely be dismissed.
If the charges are dismissed, Paul Flores could be freed from jail on Wednesday.
“He’d be released unless they re-arrest him,” Stein said. “But unless they have any new evidence, I don’t see how they could arrest him after a months-long prelim, without new evidence.”
However, should van Rooyen dismiss the charges, prosecutors can simply refile them and prepare for another preliminary hearing, supposedly with more evidence in their presentation to the court, Stein said.
Double jeopardy, the common name for a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a person from being prosecuted twice for the same crime, only comes into play once a jury has been sworn, or in the case of a juryless bench trial, once the first witness is sworn.
The prosecution also has different avenues of appealing or calling for a review of the judge’s ruling should the preliminary hearing go in the defendants’ favor. Those are varied and complex, Stein said.
Attorney assesses prosecution’s case
Asked about his assessment of the Flores preliminary hearing, Stein said “it was less of a presentation than what was promised.”
Much of the evidence that has been presented is circumstantial rather than direct or physical evidence, Stein said, though a forensic serologist testified that traces of likely human blood was found in soil under Ruben Flores’ deck.
Murder cases have been successfully prosecuted in San Luis Obispo County without a victim’s body. Matthew Levine was convicted of murdering his 84-year-old grandmother, Dorothy Vivian Autrey, in her Cayucos home in 2008. Levine stuffed Autrey’s body into a suitcase and threw the bag over a guardrail north of Ragged Point. It has never been found.
Stein said the evidence testified to by several handlers of dogs trained to detect human remains that alerted on Paul Flores’ dorm room in 1996 was strong. But he said the preliminary hearing didn’t reveal to him any new strong evidence.
“The disappearance (of Smart) is well-established,” Stein said. “But they had evidence from the same dogs they had (in 1996) that they didn’t file (charges) on 20 years ago. ... I didn’t see a lot of new evidence.”
Investigators have not disclosed any information in court indicating they know where Smart’s remains are located.
A gag order imposed by van Rooyen precludes any party in the case from commenting publicly or weighing in generally outside of the courtroom. That order is imposed through the preliminary hearing and it is unclear whether the prosecution and defense will be allowed to comment following Wednesday’s ruling.
This story was originally published September 21, 2021 at 3:03 PM with the headline "Will Kristin Smart case go to trial? Here’s what could happen when judge issues ruling."
