What evidence was presented against Tina Peters in her indictments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Prosecutors say Tina Peters intentionally allowed unauthorized access to Mesa County’s election equipment and preserved election-management-server data that she should not have released; she was indicted on 13 counts in March 2022 and later convicted on multiple charges and sentenced to about nine years [1] [2]. The U.S. Department of Justice opened a review of her state conviction in March 2025, while supporters and some media argue federal involvement or new outside testimony changes the frame [3] [4].
1. What the indictments accused her of — a concise portrait
State prosecutors charged Peters with a bundle of crimes centered on facilitating unauthorized access to Mesa County’s election systems: 13 counts originally, including attempts to influence a public servant, conspiracy counts, first‑degree official misconduct, violation of duty, obstruction, criminal impersonation and identity theft [1]. The core allegation in reporting and in the trial record is that Peters allowed an outside actor to use security credentials to copy or image an election management server — conduct prosecutors portrayed as a breach of election‑security protocols and her official duties [1] [2].
2. Evidence cited by prosecutors at indictment and trial
Reporting points to documentary and testimonial evidence tying Peters to the access and to actions after the breach: grand‑jury and trial records cited the security‑card access events, communications about availability of the machines and the presence of an outside individual affiliated with known election‑denial activists who used credentials to reach the EMS [1] [5]. Local district attorney Dan Rubinstein has repeatedly framed the case as nonpolitical, saying Peters was indicted by a grand jury and convicted by a jury of her peers — emphasizing the formal prosecutorial and jury findings [3] [5].
3. Conviction, sentence and immediate aftermath
Peters was convicted at trial and later sentenced to roughly nine years in state prison for her role in the 2021 breach and the related charges; Colorado officials and the judge presiding over the district emphasized that the sentence followed standard criminal procedures in the 21st Judicial District [2] [6]. Her imprisonment has become a rallying point for national election‑denial networks and for political supporters including former President Trump, who has publicly intervened on her behalf [2] [6].
4. Defense claims and contested narratives
Peters and supporters maintain she was a whistleblower trying to preserve records that showed election vulnerabilities; some commentators and outlets argue federal agencies steered or influenced the case and say federal testimony now supports her account [7] [4]. Media summaries show a clear partisan split: local prosecutors characterize the case as routine enforcement of election‑security and official‑duty statutes, while pro‑Peters outlets frame her as a victim of political persecution [3] [7].
5. Federal review and competing implications
The Department of Justice announced in March 2025 it would review the state conviction, an unusual step that supporters said could vindicate Peters; DOJ review does not itself vacate convictions but signals federal attention to whether federal interests or rights were implicated [3] [5]. Separately, Peters’ legal team and allies point to newly public proffers and testimony from foreign actors as bolstering her narrative — notably a December 2025 proffer attributed to Hugo Carvajal that defenders say undermines the premise that the EMS image was illicit or nefarious; mainstream outlets note these claims remain contested and distinct from the state evidence used at trial [4].
6. The pardon fight and jurisdictional limits
Former President Trump and Peters’ lawyers sought a presidential pardon; Trump publicly claimed to pardon her and later filed a formal document, but multiple Colorado officials and legal experts said a federal pardon cannot nullify state convictions — Colorado authorities rejected transfer requests and treated the pardon as lacking jurisdictional force [8] [9] [1]. That dispute underscores the separation of state criminal prosecutions from federal executive clemency and highlights political theater around an already‑adjudicated state case [9] [6].
7. What reporting does not resolve or has not said
Available sources do not mention granular forensic materials introduced at trial (for example, the full forensics of the EMS image chain‑of‑custody) beyond summary descriptions; they also do not provide the full grand‑jury transcript in public reporting accessible here [1] [3]. On the question whether foreign intelligence testimony (the Carvajal proffer) legally alters the evidentiary posture of the state prosecution, reporting documents claims by Peters’ advocates but do not show any court having vacated convictions on that basis [4] [3].
8. Bottom line for readers
The state case against Tina Peters relied on evidence that she permitted unauthorized copying of county election equipment and then acted in ways prosecutors argued corrupted her official duties; that evidence produced grand‑jury indictments, a criminal trial and a multi‑year sentence [1] [2]. Parallel political and legal developments — DOJ review, public pardoning attempts, and new outside testimony cited by supporters — complicate the public narrative but do not, in the sources reviewed here, undo the underlying state prosecutorial findings [3] [8].