State Seeks Dismissal of Pam Smart Habeas Corpus Petition
The state asked Merrimack County Superior Court to dismiss Pam Smart’s habeas corpus petition this week and to deny any evidentiary hearing. Anthony J. Galdieri filed a 34-page response saying the petition should be rejected in full.
Smart is serving a life sentence with no chance for parole after her 1991 conviction as an accomplice to first-degree murder in the killing of Gregg Smart. Her latest filing challenges the conviction through a habeas corpus petition centered on tape-recorded conversations with Cecelia Pierce.
Merrimack County Superior Court Filing
Galdieri, the solicitor general and associate attorney general, told the court the petition should be dismissed in its entirety. If the court does hold a hearing, the state said it should be limited to a legal argument on the motion to dismiss.
The state’s response also quoted Smart’s argument that her study identifies at least eleven sections of the transcript that are facially inaccurate. In the filing, the state said Smart did not explain the legal relevance of what it called the centerpiece of her habeas petition: a study made specifically for her case about transcripts of the recordings she had with Pierce.
Smart’s Earlier Challenges
The filing said Smart has already challenged her conviction through a petition for a new trial, direct appeal, appeal from the denial of her petition for a new trial, the United States Supreme Court, state and federal habeas courts, and a request for relief from the State Governor. The state also said the denial of that governor’s relief request was later taken back to New Hampshire Superior Court.
Galdieri’s filing pointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that jurors were repeatedly told to decide what was said in the tape-recorded conversations from what they heard, not what they read, and that the recordings controlled if there was a conflict.
August 15, 1991 Transcript
Smart also cited three or four snippets from the transcript of a juror-misconduct hearing held by Superior Court on August 15, 1991. The state said that post-verdict material did not show her conviction may now be challenged collaterally.
That leaves the court with a narrow choice on the filing now before it: dismiss the petition outright, or decide whether any hearing should be limited to the legal motion the state has already put in front of it.
