Paul and Ruben Flores plead not guilty in Kristin Smart murder case
READ MORE
Read more on the Kristin Smart case
Follow latest news on the Kristin Smart case and the arrests of Paul and Ruben Flores.
Expand All
Nearly a week after their arrests in the 1996 disappearance of Cal Poly student Kristin Smart, Paul and Ruben Flores pleaded not guilty Monday in San Luis Obispo Superior Court to respective counts of murder and accessory.
A judge also ruled that Paul Flores will remain in jail without bail and scheduled a hearing Wednesday to find out what, if any, bail amount Ruben Flores can afford given his assets. Ruben Flores’ bail is currently set at $250,000.
Deputy District Attorney Chris Peuvrelle, the lead prosecutor in the case, had said last week that he expected to seek a higher bail amount for Ruben Flores.
Both men appeared before Superior Court Judge Craig van Rooyen via Zoom conference from San Luis Obispo County Jail, with Paul Flores again appearing in a suit and tie and Ruben Flores in an orange jumpsuit.
San Pedro resident Paul Flores and his 80-year-old father, Arroyo Grande resident Ruben Flores, were arrested last Tuesday, and the District Attorney’s Office announced the criminal charges the following day.
For the first time, San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow publicly alleged that Paul Flores committed the murder during the commission of an rape or attempted rape.
Paul Flores, 44, was the last person seen with Smart before her disappearance. He faces a sentence of at least 25 years to life if convicted of first-degree murder.
Ruben Flores faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison if convicted of the charge, Peuvrelle said in court Monday.
Last week, van Rooyen approved a defense request for a gag order preventing parties involved — including county Sheriff Ian Parkinson and District Attorney Dow — from making any public statements regarding the proceedings outside the courtroom.
On Monday, van Rooyen also sealed from public view an affidavit submitted to the court by the prosecution opposing any change in bail. The affidavit contains “a recitation of facts, many of which have not yet been disseminated in the public sphere,” according to a sealing order written by deputy DA Peuvrelle.
At the conclusion of Monday’s hearing, van Rooyen also scheduled two routine “pre-preliminary hearings” for May 17 and June 21, and a preliminary hearing — which will feature testimony and evidence submitted in the case — for July 6.
The preliminary hearing, during which van Rooyen will decide whether the prosecution has established probable cause to justify the charges in the case, is expected to take 12 full days of testimony, van Rooyen said.
Attorneys debate Paul Flores’ bail
Prior to Monday’s hearing, Paul Flores’ attorney, Robert Sanger, filed a motion to set a bail amount for his client, who Sanger wrote “does not pose a risk to public safety and is not a flight risk.” He argued that keeping his client in custody “will impact his ability to participate in his defense and make informed decisions regarding his case.”
“Mr. Flores has been subjected to a substantial amount of pre-arrest publicity and accusations over the last 25 years,” Sanger wrote. “He and his family have also been subject to numerous interrogations and highly publicized searches of their premises and property. Nevertheless, Mr. Flores has remained in the Southern California community.”
After Paul Flores entered his not-guilty plea, Sanger made a verbal argument before van Rooyen and noted that he was keeping his arguments vague in order not to disclose any information cited in the prosecution’s sealed affidavit, but said it contains “double-hearsay and speculation” against his client.
“I am going to elect at this point not to talk about any more details because there are details that would reflect on both sides of this case, quite frankly. The court’s read it,” Sanger said. “And I don’t think it’s appropriate to engage in bringing up the evidence that might be detrimental on one side or the other — and I think the court knows what I’m talking about. I know Mr. Peuvrelle does.”
Peuvrelle countered that Paul Flores has “significant out-of-state contacts that can help him flee the jurisdiction.” Though Paul Flores has remained in the Southern California area throughout his 25 years under suspicion, the prosecutor said there’s now “a large change in circumstances” where he’s facing 25 years to life.
“That fundamentally changes the equation,” Peuvrelle said.
The prosecutor added that despite Sanger’s arguments, “there’s substantial new evidence” from recent property searches that support the changes in circumstances in the case.
In response to a question by van Rooyen, Peuvrelle stated that Paul Flores has a criminal history that includes several convictions for driving under the influence, including a felony conviction in February 2007 out of Los Angeles County. Peuvrelle said that Paul Flores also has a documented failure to appear at a court hearing in 1996.
Sanger clarified that one of Paul Flores’ DUI convictions occurred prior to Smart’s disappearance.
Peuvrelle told the judge that the probation department’s report containing Paul Flores’ criminal history filed with the court was not accurate.
Lastly, Peuvrelle noted that Flores is currently facing a charge in Los Angeles County following his February arrest for being a felon allegedly in possession of a firearm.
“Based on review of the (affidavit) and the papers that have been filed, the arguments that have been made, I do find for purposes of setting bail that facts are evident and the presumption great supporting the murder charge,” van Rooyen said.
The judge also said that he was taking into account alleged evidence listed in the affidavit — called 1108 evidence — prosecutors previously said showed past sexual assaults against an undisclosed number of women by Paul Flores, presumably in the Los Angeles area.
“I also find by clear and convincing evidence that there’s a substantial likelihood the defendant’s release would result in great bodily injury to another,” van Rooyen said, adding that that’s “based in part on the 1108 evidence laid out in the (affidavit).”
“I know some of that evidence is disputed, and I’ve taken that into consideration,” van Rooyen said.
Also, under the California Supreme Court ruling In re: Humphrey last month, judges must “make an individualized inquiry to determine whether there are any means less restrictive than pre-trial detention to ensure the compelling government interests in protecting public safety and assuring the defendant’s court appearances,” van Rooyen said.
Humphrey, which legal experts says will have far-reaching effects on the bail industry, says that defendants cannot be held in pre-trial custody simply because they can’t afford a pre-set bail amount.
Van Rooyen said that in Paul Flores’ case, there are no less restrictive means to protect public safety than keeping Paul Flores in custody without bail.
“Mr. Flores has not remained crime-free since the alleged offense date. In addition there is public interest in ensuring he does not flee the jurisdiction of the court now that he has been charged with a life crime,” van Rooyen said.
Sealed evidence discussed
Peuvrelle argued before van Rooyen Monday that Ruben Flores’ $250,000 bail was “woefully insufficient to protect public safety.”
He referenced his filings in the case, including a statement included in a probation report that alleges Ruben Flores “has repeatedly lied over the course of 24 years and has been uncooperative with law enforcement with the specific intent of aiding Paul Flores escape prosecution.”
“The excavation below his deck at 710 White Court showed damning evidence that a body had been buried in that location and then recently moved,” the report quotes Peuvrelle as writing.
Peuvrelle wrote: “Additionally, due to the evidence gleaned from the excavation, it is reasonable to believe Ruben Flores currently knows the location of Kristin Smart’s remains. Should he be allowed bail, it is a virtual certainty that he would use his freedom to continue his attempts to help Paul Flores thwart the prosecution in this case and continue to hide her remains.”
Mesick, who had not filed a motion regarding bail prior to Monday’s hearing, argued verbally for his client’s release on his own recognizance (without posting bail) and called the longtime Arroyo Grande resident “a fine, upstanding member in this community.”
He said that Ruben Flores has 40-year-old ties to Arroyo Grande, served on a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, is involved in several nonprofit and volunteer positions in the area, and was a past reserve officer for the Redondo Police Department. Mesick added that he has no passport and is not a flight risk.
Ruben Flores’ criminal history “is pristine,” Mesick said, with no past arrests. He’s also in poor health, Mesick said, noting he recently underwent triple-bypass surgery, suffers from diabetes and colitis, and is currently taking 17 different medications.
“He’s a medical nightmare for the jail,” Mesick said. “And I believe if he remains in custody for very much longer, this case will resolve, unfortunately, by his unnatural death.”
The attorney also elaborated on the possible contents of the sealed affidavit.
“The evidence against him in this case, your Honor, it is absolutely — if we can even call it evidence — it is so minimal as to shock the conscience,” Mesick said.
Mesick called into question the reliability of an expert supposedly cited in the affidavit who has a master’s degree in archaeology.
“She’s not a soil scientist or a geo-technical engineer in any regard, and if she had been, she would have seen where they discovered their damning evidence in this case, there are many different innocent explanations for why the soil was disturbed, primarily because it’s between two continuous building foundations,” Mesick said, appearing to reference evidence related to the law enforcement dig at Ruben Flores’ property.
He continued: “So when these foundations were built, they brought a backhoe in. It’s a two-story home so they had to excavate a minimum of two feet into the earth, 15 to 18 inches wide, and then deposit what they call the spoils somewhere. They always deposit the spoils outside the foundation, which is where they claim the soil was a ‘hot mess’ — It was a hot mess, because it’s been previously excavated, your Honor.”
He said “the evidence itself is more than ambiguous,” and that the expert herself said the evidence “neither confirms nor denies, and I’m not going to say what, but it leans toward one fact than another.”
Peuvrelle responded that Mesick ignored several key parts of the sealed evidence.
After being told by Peuvrelle that Ruben Flores faces a maximum sentence of three years, van Rooyen noted that if he was held in custody he could potentially serve his entire sentence by the time his case reaches trial. Peuvrelle said the court’s uniform bail schedule for a single accessory charge is $20,000.
Citing the recent Supreme Court ruling In re: Humphrey and his weighing of public safety as well as Ruben Flores’ likelihood to appear at future court dates, van Rooyen said, “I just don’t see that keeping Mr. Flores in custody because the People believe that might aid their investigation or keep Mr. Flores from tampering with evidence, I don’t see that as a consideration under (Humphrey).”
“I also know that there are people in the community who feel very strongly about this and that Mr. Flores should not be released from custody,” van Rooyen said. “Again, the basis of Humphrey is we should not be punishing people before the case has been proven against them.”
“Here, we have a man in his 80s without any criminal history. He’s apparently very ill, he’s lived in the county for decades,” van Rooyen said. “I can’t find that it is reasonably likely under the language in Humphrey (to conclude) that the defendant is going to hurt someone or commit another crime.”
He said he does intend to release Ruben Flores on some amount of bail but will review his financial information in order to determine a reasonable amount on Wednesday.
Smart family statement filed in court
A bail report filed in the case also shows that the Smart family opposed bail for Paul and Ruben Flores, issuing the following statement to the court:
“Our family strongly opposes any bail being offered to Paul Flores. Given the charges filed against him that he murdered our daughter, sought and received help from his father, Ruben, and then the two collaborated to hide her and deny any knowledge of their actions for the next 25 years is simply reprehensible. This is not how mature, responsible adults act!
“Given the charges against Paul, we fear his release on bail directly threatens the safety of our family. We know the primary purpose of bail is to help ensure that a person accused of a crime does not leave town or miss specified trial dates in court. Obviously, after 25 years of deliberately hiding the truth, we are gravely concerned this lifelong coward will seek to run if freed on bail.
“Just as importantly, we believe he and his father are seeking bail simply because they do not like being held in confinement. They want to be released and return to the comfort of their homes. Do not treat them as children and give into their wishes. Treat them as adults who knew better but selfishly acted to protect themselves, lie about their actions, and withhold knowledge for 25 years while denying our family the chance to lay our daughter to rest.
“Offering him bail merely rewards his past actions while penalizing our family once again. The pain of his release and potential threat to our family would be devastating. We have lived with their deplorable actions long enough and do not want anything to stand between us and justice for our precious daughter and sister. We have waited 25 years to recover Kristin and his release or reduced bail would clearly jeopardize our chance to lay Kristin to rest in the embrace of her family. There is nothing more important.”
The Smarts submitted a similar statement in Ruben Flores’ case, saying he shouldn’t be granted bail because he “collaborated” with his son “to hide her and deny any knowledge of their actions for the next 25 years,” the report quotes them as writing.
Smart family spokesman John Segale sent a statement to media following the hearing Monday saying that the family does not have any statement regarding Monday’s proceeding.
This story was originally published April 19, 2021 at 2:11 PM with the headline "Paul and Ruben Flores plead not guilty in Kristin Smart murder case."
