Latest petition from Pamela Smart asserts constitutional violations as grounds for appeal

on July 22, 2026

Lawyers for Pamela Smart, who is serving life in prison for orchestrating the murder of her husband by her teenage student in 1990, urged a New Hampshire judge Monday to allow her latest petition for a new trial to move forward.

Smart, 58, was a 22-year-old high school media coordinator when she began an affair with a 15-year-old boy who later fatally shot her husband, Gregory Smart, in Derry.

The shooter was freed in 2015 after serving a 25-year sentence. Though Smart denied knowledge of the plot, she was convicted of being an accomplice to first-degree murder and other crimes and was sentenced to life without parole after a trial that was one of the first in the nation to be broadcast live on television from start to finish.

Pamela Smart's appeal is based on claims of inaccurate transcripts of audio recordings used during her trial, which her lawyers argue misled the jury and violated her constitutional rights. They also contend that the intense media coverage affected her ability to receive a fair trial and that the jury was not properly instructed on the evidence presented.

Pamela Smart's appeal is based on claims of inaccurate transcripts of audio recordings used during her trial, which her lawyers argue misled the jury and violated her constitutional rights. They also contend that the intense media coverage affected her ability to receive a fair trial and that the jury was not instructed correctly on the evidence presented.

Smart filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in January seeking to overturn her conviction over what her lawyers claim were several constitutional violations. The state responded with a motion to dismiss the petition, resulting in Monday's hearing, which Smart attended remotely from the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in New York.

In 2022, Pamela Smart's petition for a sentence reduction was dismissed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which stated it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in what it deemed a "political" question. This ruling was part of her ongoing attempts to seek relief from her life sentence for her role in the murder of her husband in 1990. She has been denied requests for commutation of her sentence several times.

The Law

An appeal based on habeas corpus is a legal process where a person challenges their detention or imprisonment, asking the court to review the legality of their confinement. This type of appeal can introduce new evidence and arguments that were not part of the original trial record.

Definition of Habeas Corpus Appeal

An appeal based on habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows an individual to challenge the legality of their detention or imprisonment. This process involves petitioning a court to review whether the reasons for the individual's confinement are lawful.

Key Features of Habeas Corpus Appeals

To file a habeas corpus claim in New Hampshire, a petitioner must first exhaust all state court remedies, including direct appeals and any state habeas or collateral review, and the claim must involve a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. The petition must be filed within one year after the state remedies are exhausted.

Purpose

• To contest unlawful detention.

• To ensure that the individual's rights are protected.

Evidence and Arguments

• Unlike a direct appeal, a habeas corpus appeal can introduce new evidence and arguments that were not presented during the original trial.

• This may include affidavits, expert reports, or witness testimony.

Legal Process

• The court examines the legality of the detention rather than the merits of the original conviction.

• It can be seen as a "collateral attack" on the conviction, addressing issues that may not be evident in the trial record.

Cases of Note 

Mallard v. Warden, where the petitioner challenged the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Mallard v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (2023) is a landmark New Hampshire Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to effective counsel and a fair trial are violated when their own defense attorney uses racist tropes—such as referring to the defendant as a "big, menacing black guy"—during cross-examination. 

On January 4, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned the superior court's dismissal, ruling that the attorney’s conduct established a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. The court allowed the habeas petition to proceed, recognizing that trial counsel's deficient performance by appealing to racial bias violated Mallard's constitutional rights.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court handles habeas corpus petitions as a means for individuals to challenge the legality of their detention. These petitions allow detainees to formally request the court to review their custody status and determine if it is lawful.

Legal Grounds for Pamela Smart's Appeal

Pamela Smart's appeal is centered on several key legal arguments that her attorneys believe warrant a new trial. These arguments include:

Inaccurate Transcripts

Misleading Evidence: Smart's lawyers argue that the transcripts of audio recordings presented during her trial contained inaccuracies. They claim that certain words were not audible in the recordings but were included in the transcripts, which misled the jury.

Impact on Jury Perception: A study cited by her attorneys suggests that jurors who receive transcripts alongside audio recordings may be influenced to believe the written text, even if it is inaccurate. This could have affected their interpretation of the evidence.

Media Influence

Trial by Media: Smart's legal team contends that the extensive media coverage surrounding her trial created a biased environment, preventing her from receiving a fair trial. They argue that this media attention turned her into a caricature rather than allowing her to be seen as a person.

Jury Instructions

Faulty Jury Guidance: The appeal also claims that the jury was not properly instructed regarding the evidence they were to consider. Specifically, they argue that jurors were told they must find Smart acted with premeditation without being informed to consider only the evidence presented during the trial.

Constitutional Violations

Violation of Rights: Smart's attorneys assert that the inaccuracies in the transcripts and the media influence constituted violations of her constitutional rights, which should be grounds for overturning her conviction.

Smart's petition for a new trial, which is currently under consideration by the court with Merrimack County Superior Court Judge James Kennedy taking the matter under advisement. He plans to rule in 30 to 60 days.