Listen to the article
A Colorado appeals panel expressed significant skepticism Wednesday about whether former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ prison sentence was properly influenced by her promotion of election conspiracy theories.
During oral arguments, the three-judge panel questioned the state’s attorney about District Court Judge Matthew Barrett’s decision to include Peters’ false election claims as part of his reasoning for imposing a nine-year sentence.
“The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” Appeals Judge Craig Welling stated during the hearing, suggesting potential constitutional issues with the sentencing approach.
Peters was convicted of orchestrating a breach of her county’s election equipment in 2021, driven by unfounded claims about voting machine fraud following Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss. She allowed a man affiliated with MyPillow founder Mike Lindell to make copies of the county’s election system hard drive during a software update, using another person’s security badge to facilitate access.
The case has gained national attention as Trump has embraced Peters as a political ally. The former president issued a symbolic pardon for Peters last month, though it carries no legal weight since her convictions were for state crimes beyond presidential pardoning power. Trump has threatened Colorado with “harsh measures” if the state does not release her.
Interestingly, Peters’ legal team did not raise Trump’s purported pardon during Wednesday’s arguments. Attorney Peter Ticktin later explained they lacked time to address it within the court’s 30-minute allotment. Instead, Ticktin expressed optimism that Democratic Governor Jared Polis might grant clemency, citing Polis’ recent characterization of Peters’ sentence as “harsh.”
The appeals hearing revealed multiple concerns about Peters’ case. All three judges expressed unease with Judge Barrett’s sentencing statements, in which he called Peters a “charlatan” who endangered the community by spreading election lies. The panel questioned whether these statements constituted improper punishment for her political speech rather than her criminal actions.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels defended Barrett’s approach, arguing that Peters herself made her election conspiracy theories relevant during sentencing by presenting “a slideshow” and “pages and pages” of debunked claims. Michaels maintained that Barrett clearly based the sentence on Peters’ specific criminal convictions.
The judges also raised concerns about jury instructions for one of Peters’ felony convictions, suggesting they may have been improperly presented with language for a misdemeanor version of the crime.
Peters’ attorneys are seeking her immediate release, arguing the judge inappropriately factored a contempt conviction into her sentence that was later overturned by the appeals court. They have also asked the panel to recognize Trump’s pardon despite its lack of legal authority over state offenses.
The courtroom was filled with Peters’ supporters, some of whom had waited hours to secure seats. Several audibly approved when judges questioned the propriety of Barrett’s sentencing remarks.
Peters’ case has become a rallying point within the election conspiracy movement. Trump has criticized both Polis and Republican District Attorney Dan Rubinstein for keeping Peters imprisoned. The Federal Bureau of Prisons previously attempted unsuccessfully to transfer Peters to federal custody.
Some supporters have taken extreme positions. Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting a police officer during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and later pardoned by Trump, threatened on social media that “January 6er Patriots” and U.S. Marshals would storm the Colorado prison if Peters wasn’t released by month’s end. However, a message on Peters’ social media account disavowed any connection to demonstrations at the prison and denounced the use of force.
The appeals panel did not indicate when they might rule on the case. If they find issues with Peters’ sentencing, they could remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The appeals panel seems justified in questioning whether the former clerk’s prison sentence was improperly influenced by her election conspiracy claims. Upholding the Constitution and due process should take precedence over political motivations.
Agreed. Regardless of one’s views on election integrity, the justice system must remain neutral and focus on the facts of the case, not the defendant’s controversial political positions.
This case raises important concerns around free speech and political motivations in the justice system. While election security is critical, it’s crucial that sentencing doesn’t become a tool for punishing controversial political views.
I agree, the appeals panel seems right to question whether the sentence was unduly influenced by the former clerk’s election conspiracy claims. Upholding the Constitution should be the top priority.
The breach of election systems is a serious offense, but the appeals panel is right to scrutinize whether the sentence was improperly influenced by the former clerk’s political views. Proper due process and constitutional protections must be upheld.
Absolutely. Ensuring election integrity is vital, but the justice system must remain impartial and avoid the appearance of political targeting, no matter the controversial claims involved.
This case highlights the challenging intersection of election security, free speech, and judicial impartiality. While the breach of election systems is a serious matter, the appeals panel is right to scrutinize whether the former clerk’s sentence was inappropriately influenced by her political views.
This case touches on the complex balance between election security, free speech, and judicial impartiality. I’m interested to see how the appeals panel rules on whether the sentencing was appropriately focused on the crime itself rather than the defendant’s political views.