Pamela Smart Seeks New Trial, Claims Jurors Were Misled in Teen Lover’s Murder of Husband

Pamela Smart, the New Hampshire woman at the center of one of the nation’s most infamous murder cases, is asking a judge to allow her latest effort to win a new trial to proceed.

Smart was 22 and employed as a high school media coordinator in 1990 when prosecutors accused her of having a sexual relationship with 15-year-old William Flynn and persuading him to fatally shoot her husband, Gregory Smart.

A jury convicted her in 1991 as an accomplice to first-degree murder, and she has remained behind bars ever since, serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

On Monday, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge James Kennedy heard arguments on Smart’s petition for habeas corpus relief, then took the case under advisement. Kennedy said he expects to issue a written decision within 30 to 60 days.

Smart, now 58, filed the petition in January in an attempt to overturn her conviction. Her legal team argues that prosecutors improperly influenced jurors by giving them transcripts of secretly recorded conversations that contained words her attorneys say are not actually audible on the tapes.

The challenged language includes the word “killed” in the phrase “you had your husband killed,” “busted” in “I’m gonna be busted,” and “murder” in “this would have been the perfect murder.”

Earlier this year, Smart’s attorney, Matthew Zernhelt, said new research supports the defense claim, arguing that “modern science confirms what common sense has always told us: when people are handed a script, they inevitably hear the words they are shown.” He said jurors “were not evaluating the recordings independently – they were being directed toward a conclusion, and that direction decided the verdict.”

During Monday’s hearing, Zernhelt argued the petition clears the low bar required to survive a motion to dismiss, saying the court’s role at this stage is simply to determine whether it alleges sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Pointing to new forensic research, Zernhelt argued written transcripts can influence how jurors interpret difficult-to-hear recordings.

Zernhelt also pointed to recordings a juror made after each day of trial, arguing they show the juror relied on the written transcripts to understand the recordings and ultimately voted to convict Smart.

Assistant Attorney General John Drennan urged Kennedy to dismiss the petition, arguing Smart is attempting to relitigate issues that have already been decided by appellate courts over the past three decades.

Prosecutors argued nearly all of Smart’s claims either were raised and rejected on direct appeal by the New Hampshire Supreme Court or could have been raised years ago but were not.

Prosecutors also noted that during Smart’s trial, the defense challenged the transcripts only over the alleged “doubling” of voices when two people spoke at once – not over the specific inaccuracies now being alleged.

Jurors also were instructed that if the transcripts differed from the recordings, they should rely on what they heard. The New Hampshire Supreme Court later found Smart’s attorneys failed to make a “particularized showing of inaccuracies in the transcripts relative to the recordings or how she may have been prejudiced” by them.

Drennan challenged the scientific study cited by Smart’s attorneys, arguing the court has not received sufficient information about its methodology and that it does not demonstrate actual prejudice to the jury. He also noted jurors were instructed that the recordings – not the accompanying transcripts – constituted the evidence.

“Maybe cognitive bias has set in,” Drennan argued, comparing the issue to reading an automated voicemail transcript before listening to the recording itself. “It doesn’t mean that I can’t, when listening, say, ‘I’m not sure that’s right.’ I know to review it. I know to be skeptical.”

Kennedy questioned both sides throughout the hearing, including whether Smart’s claims regarding the disputed transcripts had already been addressed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court on direct appeal and what specific language in the transcripts allegedly prejudiced the jury.

The judge did not indicate how he intends to rule.

Smart’s attorneys also argue widespread media coverage tainted the verdict and that jurors received flawed instructions, including that they were told they had to find Smart acted with premeditation and were not instructed to consider only evidence presented at trial.

They also contend she should not have received a mandatory life sentence without parole because she was convicted as an accomplice to first-degree murder rather than as the shooter.

Prosecutors contend those claims either were previously litigated, could have been raised years ago or lack factual support.

INC News has reached out to Smart’s attorney for additional comment.

In 1990, Flynn and 17-year-old Patrick Randall entered the Smarts’ Derry condominium, forced Gregory Smart to his knees and shot him once in the head with a hollow-point bullet. Two other teenagers helped plan the killing.

Flynn and the three other teenagers involved in the murder later cooperated with prosecutors and have since been released from prison.

Smart’s latest legal challenge comes after she publicly accepted responsibility for her husband’s death in 2024.

In a prison video obtained by INC News, Smart said she spent years deflecting blame “almost as if it was a coping mechanism” before acknowledging her role in Gregory Smart’s killing.

“I take full responsibility for my part in Gregory’s murder,” Smart said at the time.

Smart has repeatedly challenged her conviction through state and federal courts over the past three decades but has never obtained a new trial. Her requests for sentence reductions and clemency have also been denied, including by Gov. Kelly Ayotte last year.

The case became one of the nation’s first murder trials broadcast live from start to finish and later inspired Joyce Maynard’s novel “To Die For” and the 1995 film adaptation starring Nicole Kidman and Joaquin Phoenix.