#
0 likes10 views
Categories Politics

WATCH: Colorado Appellate Court Judges Eviscerate Colorado’s Case Against Tina Peters’ in Appeals Hearing

January 15, 2026

 

Yesterday was a good day for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who’s appeal was heard in Colorado by a three judge appellate panel.  Peters was sentenced to a nine-year sentence in October 2024 for ‘crimes’ committed while upholding her obligations under federal law to secure election records.

The charges Peters was convicted of include three counts of attempting to influence a public servant (bureaucrats from the Secretary of State’s office), one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with an order or requirement from the Secretary of State.

The appeal was “based on core legal and constitutional errors,” according to a press release from Peters’ legal team.   Those claims were federal Immunity/Supremacy Clause, insufficient evidence, denial of due process, unconstitutional sentencing, and pardon jurisdiction.

The hearing started off shaky with Peters’ attorney John Case being questioned about the Supremacy Clause claim.  Case argued that it was Peters’ obligation to preserve and investigate the election records under 52 USC 20701.  However, the panel pushed back and questioned whether “investigate” element was an obligation under the statute.  Case argued that the obligation is to preserve and protect and that the statute does not prohibit her from investigating the election.

The fireworks, however, began when the State presented its arguments.  The significant issues that the judges probed revolved around a misstated charge, unjust sentencing, and the trial judge’s restrictions on Peters presenting a complete defense.

“Is it your position that a person can still be convicted of a crime with which they were never charged and with which the jury was never instructed, as long as the evidence is sufficient?” asked Judge Ted C. Tow.  “Yes, I think that that is what the case law indicates,” responded Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels.  “It was one word.  “Might.”  And it was already…,” Michaels began before being interrupted by another judge, Judge Craig Welling.

“Yeah, but that one word distinguishes it from a felony to a misdemeanor,” Judge Welling stated.

“In this case, it made an extra sentence.  Fifteen more months in the Department of Corrections that couldn’t have been given had it been a misdemeanor conviction.  It clearly affects a substantial right,” Judge Tow asserted.

“I’m confused as to why the People are continuing to maintain that the proper remedy on this isn’t to enter the conviction for the misdemeanor because the indictment used the word ‘might’ and the jury was instructed on that, so that’s what the verdict is.  I am baffled as to the position that’s being taken that we can somehow overlook that and still enter the felony because the evidence that was presented at trial would have supported the felony.  Are you still maintaining that position in front of us here today?” asked Judge Welling.

“Yes.  That is our position,” Michaels responded.

Watch this shocking moment:

 

Another important argument the judges probed was Judge Matthew Barrett’s harsh remarks during sentencing.  Judge Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” and “snake oil salesman.”

“You are no hero.  You abused your position.  And you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again,” Judge Barrett opined during Peters’ sentencing in October 2024.

Judge Lino Lipinsky de Orlov, after citing Judge Barrett’s remarks, asked, “Didn’t he consider uncharged conduct as he referred to snake oil, etc?  Wasn’t he considering uncharged conduct in sentencing her and wasn’t that an error?”

“I don’t think that’s something that was problematic,” responded Michaels.  “All of that was part and parcel of the context of the criminal conduct.  She wanted to promote these allegations of election fraud and her scheme of deception, everything she did…,” Michaels continued until being cut off by Judge Lipinsky de Orlov.

“But she wasn’t convicted of publicly saying there was election fraud,” Lipinsky de Orlov stated.

Michaels claimed the context was relevant.  “Why is the context relevant when the court excluded much of the evidence of election fraud?  So, on one hand the judge says ‘Ms. Peters, you can’t bring this in’ and on the other hand, he refers to it when he’s sentencing her,” he continued.

“The Court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights.  Is that a fair statement as a broad principle?” asked Judge Tow.

Watch this interaction:

 

Another charge the judges probed was the official misconduct charge.  The charge required the “intent to receive a benefit for herself.”

“[T]he official misconduct charge was charged as with the intent to receive a benefit for herself.  Why is it not relevant to the jury for her to say, ‘I didn’t intend to receive a benefit for myself.  I intended to do what I thought was my job and protect the election process.’  Why was that evidence not relevant at least to that charge?” asked Judge Tow.

In a word salad response, Michaels said, “I think that it wasn’t based on the benefit to herself, but it was based on the violating the election, the Secretary of State’s rules.  And so I think its a little bit different.”  She went on to explain that it all relates to a “scheme of deception” and that it doesn’t negate the “intent to deceive to engage in this plot of deception.”

“But engaging in the plot of deception has no bearing on the charge of first-degree official misconduct,” responded Judge Tow.  He went on to explain that the elements do not have anything to do with the intent to deceive but rather the intent to gain a benefit.

“Why was that evidence not appropriately submitted to a jury?” he asked.

Michaels’ response was quite shocking.  She implied that the evidence was kept out so that Peters’ trial didn’t become a “mini trial.”

“When it comes to a defendant’s Constitutional Right to present a complete defense, does a trial court have the ability to curtail that in the interest of not letting the sideshow overcome the circus?  Don’t they have a Constitutional Right to present a complete defense?  And the only restriction on that I think is out there is that means the Court can prevent cumulative or irrelevant evidence, but I cannot curtail the presentation of relevant evidence.”

The judges appeared favorable to, at the very least, allowing a resentencing of Peters.  Peters’ attorney asked that the sentencing be carried out by a different judge if remanded back to the lower court.

Another point Case brought up in Peters’ defense was the fact that Colorado only has four minimum security facilities and that all four are exclusively for men.  Because of this discrimination based on sex, Peters is forced to live amongst “murders, child molesters, and drug dealers,” according to Case.

“You have a 70 year-old woman, non-violent, first offense, probation eligible, never had a traffic ticket before this, given 9 years in the penitentiary.  Under DOC regulations, she oughta be in a minimum security facility with similar defendants,” Case argued.

Governor Jared Polis recently chimed in on Peters conviction and sentencing, calling it “harsh” and hinting at the potential of commuting her sentence.

The appellate judges will deliberate on the arguments and present a decision; however, there is no timeline for this.  Given the harsh conditions in which Peters’ is currently subjected as a non-violent first offender, a senior citizen, and a Gold Star mom, and given the interrogatives proposed by the judges themselves to the State, hopefully she can be released on bond pending any decision, something her counsel has requested since sentencing in October of 2024.

Watch the entire hearing here:

The post WATCH: Colorado Appellate Court Judges Eviscerate Colorado’s Case Against Tina Peters’ in Appeals Hearing appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.