Former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters looks on during sentencing for her election interference case at the Mesa County District Court Thursday, Oct. 3, 2024, in Grand Junction, Colo. (Larry Robinson/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel via AP).
The first election official convicted of a felony over 2020 election conspiracy theories promulgated by followers of Donald Trump is appealing an earlier contempt of court ruling in a related case.
Tina Peters, 68, is the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado. In August, she was convicted on seven counts of engaging in a security breach — related to unauthorized access to voting machines. In October, after a marathon hearing in which the defendant repeatedly expressed defiance and stuck to her theories, she was sentenced to nine years in state prison for those felony offenses.
While sitting in the gallery during a February 2022 hearing for one of her alleged co-conspirators, Peters allegedly used an iPad to record some of the proceedings. In May 2023, she was found guilty of contempt for that decidedly lesser charge — and fined $1,500.
In June, Peters appealed her contempt citation, with the state filing its reply brief the following month. This week, Peters’ attorney John Case appeared before a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals.
“Treat my client as if she were some other poor person and not outspoken or a public figure,” the defense attorney pleaded with the appellate court in Denver, according to a courtroom report by Courthouse News Service.
Authorities claim Peters and her deputy clerk Belinda Knisley engaged in election equipment tampering and official misconduct by allowing an unauthorized third party to make copies of voting machine hard drives before and after a “trusted build” systems upgrade — a software update — in May 2021. Knisley is alleged to have made sure security cameras were turned off in the room where the machines were stored so photographs could be taken by the third party during the trusted build. She ultimately pleaded guilty to trespassing, first-degree official misconduct and violation of duty and was given two years of unsupervised probation, 150 hours of community service and agreed to testify against Peters.
The iPad incident occurred during one of Knisley’s hearings.
On appeal, Peters claims the prosecution failed to prove their case.
“To prove the contents of a recording, the original recording must be presented consistent with the Best Evidence Rule,” the appellate brief reads. “Because the prosecution presented no evidence that Ms. Peters’ iPad contained a recording of the February 7, 2022, hearing, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the contempt must be vacated.”
The defendant also argued there was no lawful court order in effect that specifically made recording proceedings verboten.
“The trial court never found as a fact that Judge Barrett had entered a lawful order that prohibited recording the proceedings in his courtroom,” the appellate brief goes on. “Nor did the court find that Ms. Peters knew of the order before the District Attorney accused her of recording. Because the trial court failed to make findings as to two of the four elements of proof required by [relevant case law], the Court of Appeals must reverse and remand for a new trial.”
During the incident in question, Mesa County Judge Matthew Barrett did not sanction Peters. Instead, he warned her after a bit of back-and-forth between the court, Peters, and a prosecutor.
Peters, for her part, denied recording.
Here’s how the judge ended the interaction:
Well, the bottom line is — as I mentioned, there’s a sign on the door that says no recording, video, audio — it’s all common sense for most folks to know that. This is a recorded proceeding in any event. So, this is the one warning that the individual in the courtroom will get. If I find that someone has violated this order in the future, then I’ll take appropriate action, and it will be appropriate — no doubt in my mind about that.
During oral arguments, Case was asked if the sign on the door saying not to record the proceedings was equivalent to a court order.
“Who knows?” Peter’s attorney reportedly answered, “The only person who knows what the order is is Judge Barrett.”
When another judge asked whether lying to the judge about recording would qualify as contempt, Case answered in the affirmative — saying any lie to a judge would be a violation.
But in this case, the defense attorney said, there is simply not enough evidence that Peters lied about the recording issue.
“That was the only evidence she could show that proved her innocence and the judge wouldn’t admit it,” Case told the panel of judges.
During the state’s time at the dais, 21st Judicial District Deputy Attorney Richard Tuttle said the prosecution wanted to use iPad evidence but could not figure out the password.
“Peters’ Counsel then requested at the hearing that the iPad be released, and the trial court denied the request,” the state’s reply brief notes.
What looked like a stalemate was decided by the judge overseeing the contempt hearing — who was not the same judge from the original Knisley hearing. In fact, a second judge issued the contempt citation; a third judge altogether conducted the hearing at issue in the appeal. Barrett would eventually preside over Peters’ felony trial.
During oral arguments, at least one judge appeared skeptical of the state’s claims about the sufficiency of the alleged court order, according to Courthouse News. The prosecutor said the prohibition on recording was “apparently” part of a broader decorum order.
“Your wording is interesting, ‘The decorum order apparently prohibited recording,’” Court of Appeals Judge Stephanie Dunn told the prosecutor. “The burden is on the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
