This story was originally produced by the Concord Monitor. NHPR is republishing it in partnership with the Granite State News Collaborative.
In a Concord courtroom Monday, lawyers argued anew about the quality of audio records from Pamela Smart’s murder trial 25 years ago.
Two hundred miles away, Smart, now 58, watched the proceedings from Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, quietly taking notes, her blond hair flowing past her shoulders.
Her original trial for her role in the 1990 murder of her husband was a media sensation that spurred books, TV shows and even a movie. It was the first murder case televised nationally.
Read more of NHPR's prior coverage of Pamela Smart
By comparison, Monday’s two-hour hearing in Merrimack County Superior Court focused more on technicalities than the murder plot of a 22-year-old high school media coordinator who had an affair with a 15-year-old student.
Smart’s attorneys argued that her original trial relied on inaccurate transcripts of body wire recordings, evidence that was central to her conviction. Moreover, media attention prevented her from getting a fair trial.
Matthew Zernhelt, one of Smart’s attorneys, said the jury was misled by inaccurate transcripts from the original trial recordings, and claimed those issues violated her constitutional rights.
He noted that portions of the recordings were inaudible, and he pointed to a study suggesting that written transcripts played alongside audio can shape how a jury interprets what it hears.
“No one should be sitting in a life-without-parole sentence where the conviction resulted from untrue or inaccurate evidence,” said Zernhelt.
State prosecutors moved to dismiss the motion in front of Judge James Kennedy. He took the matter under advisement and plans to rule within 30 to 60 days.
John Drennan, an assistant attorney general, said none of Smart’s claims are supported by facts, and that she appears to be using the habeas corpus process in place of an appeal
He compared discrepancies in the transcripts to reading a transcribed voicemail and then listening to the actual message.
“Maybe cognitive bias has set in, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t, when listening, say, ‘Hey, I’m not sure that’s right,’” he said. “I know to review it. I know to be skeptical.”
Smart has tried multiple times to overturn her conviction or reduce her sentence. In 2024, she finally took responsibility for her role in the murder of her husband, Gregg Smart. She said she had spent years deflecting blame “almost as if it was a coping mechanism.”
She was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1991 after being convicted as an accomplice to first-degree murder.
Billy Flynn, the 15-year-old student who later fatally shot Gregory Smart in Derry pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and testified against Smart at trial. He was released in 2015 after serving nearly 25 years in prison. His friend Patrick Randall, who held a knife to Gregory Smart’s throat while Flynn fired the fatal shot, was also freed that same year.
In their petition filed in January, Smart’s attorneys pointed to the intense media coverage surrounding the trial, arguing it turned her into “a caricature, a conceived identity, no longer a person.”
“It was a trial by media in the purest form,” her attorneys wrote.
This is not the first time Smart has pursued a path toward a reduced sentence, and previous efforts have not succeeded. She appealed to the New Hampshire Executive Council.
In 2023, a separate appeal to the state Supreme Court was also rejected, leaving Smart with limited legal options.
Last year, Gov. Kelly Ayotte rejected Smart’s request to bring the matter before the Executive Council again. In a statement, Ayotte said that after reviewing the case, she determined it was “not deserving” of a hearing before the council.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
