What specific exhibits and testimony were entered into evidence at Tina Peters' 2024 trial?
Executive summary
The trial record in former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ 2024 criminal case centered on a suite of digital exhibits — hard‑drive images, recordings and message screenshots — and on a string of former county employees and associates who described how those materials were obtained and circulated; prosecutors emphasized the hard‑drive images and witness accounts as the core evidence, while the defense relied heavily on alternate witnesses and contested messages [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows the prosecution introduced stored images of election‑system drives, internal recordings and multiple witness statements from county staff and contractors, and the defense presented its own witnesses such as Sherronna Bishop to counter the state’s narrative [1] [4] [2].
1. Key prosecution exhibits: the hard‑drive images and chain of custody
Central to the state’s case were images of election‑system hard drives that investigators established had been copied from Mesa County machines and were then stored on a hard drive and ultimately mailed to a consultant in California, Conan Hayes, a fact that prosecutors relied on in describing the security breach [1]. Coverage describes those copied images and the physical hard drive as a primary exhibit and narrative touchstone—material that undergirded charges of unauthorized access and distribution of confidential election data [1] [2].
2. Recordings and contemporaneous evidence: Wenholz’s tape and internal notes
Trial reporters noted that former elections manager Stephanie Wenholz made a recording of a tense May 2021 meeting and that counsel conferred about admitting that recording as an exhibit during her testimony, indicating the court was asked to receive contemporaneous audio as evidence of workplace direction and pressure [4] [5]. That recording and other internal documentation were used by prosecutors to establish managerial instructions and the atmosphere inside the clerk’s office after the alleged breach [5] [6].
3. Messaging and screenshot exhibits: Signal, texts and communications shown to witnesses
Screenshots of group chat messages and Signal screenshots were presented in court and discussed on the stand, notably a set of screenshots Sherronna Bishop produced that she said reflected chats among herself, Gerald Wood and Peters; the authenticity and probative weight of those message exhibits became a contested point in closing arguments [2]. Reporters also describe prosecutors showing communications linked to Gerald Wood and other phone records to corroborate interactions among the participants and to tie individuals to the events [4] [2].
4. Witness testimony the jury heard: county staff, IT personnel and associates
A roster of witnesses—Belinda Knisley (former chief deputy), Stephanie Wenholz (front‑end elections manager), David Underwood (lead support specialist), Gerald Wood (IT contractor), Brandi Bantz (state or vendor representative on Trusted Build) and conservative activist Sherronna Bishop—testified about who ordered or performed actions, how access was granted, and who first moved the images offsite; Wood testified he received immunity for his testimony [1] [4] [7] [2]. Testimony included Knisley recounting Peters’ reaction when the images were posted online and Underwood explaining why he allowed access to a consultant he believed to be authorized, both of which prosecutors used to establish intent and deceptive steps [1] [7].
5. Defense evidence, cross‑examination and evidentiary limits
The defense put forward Bishop and challenged the provenance and authentication of some message chains; prosecutors in closing specifically urged jurors to distrust Bishop’s account where contemporaneous corroboration was lacking, noting the authenticity of at least one text chain “hadn’t been corroborated by anyone else” and was not found on seized devices [3] [2]. The record shows the defense attempted to introduce testimony and exhibits about alleged vulnerabilities in Dominion systems and county ownership of machines, but reporting indicates the court limited some lines of inquiry as irrelevant to the charged crimes [7] [4].
6. Why the evidence mattered to the verdict
News coverage of the verdict emphasized that jurors convicted on multiple counts after weighing the hard‑drive images, the physical chain and the layered witness testimony showing how access and distribution occurred; at the same time, coverage noted the jury was asked to weigh competing credibility claims, particularly over message screenshots and Bishop’s testimony [3] [2]. Reporting documents the prosecution’s reliance on documentary exhibits (copied images, recordings, communications) and on cooperating witnesses, while the defense’s alternative explanations were diminished where contemporaneous digital evidence and testimony converged [1] [4] [2].