What defenses and evidence have Tina Peters' attorneys submitted so far?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tina Peters’ legal team has relied on a mix of procedural challenges, claims of official-duty and constitutional defenses, attempts to introduce outside evidence (including correspondence from voting-machine vendor Dominion), testimony aimed at shifting blame to associates, and post-conviction petitions and pardon requests — while judges have repeatedly limited or rejected many of those efforts at trial and in subsequent hearings [1] [2] [3]. Prosecutors counter that the thrust of the defense is untethered from the admitted facts of an unauthorized security breach and that Peters’ tactics have repeatedly run afoul of court orders [4] [3].
1. Defense theory: acting under duty and seeking election integrity
Peters’ lawyers framed her actions as measures taken in her official capacity to investigate and determine the validity of elections, arguing she believed she was obligated to obtain and inspect machine data — an argument invoking official-duty and, at times, First Amendment themes — and seeking to recharacterize criminal acts as lawful oversight rather than malicious wrongdoing [5] [1]. The Tenth Circuit filings and motions show the defense pressed immunity-style themes and argued that some conduct was “actions that she was obligated to take” as Mesa County clerk [1].
2. Evidentiary gambits: seeking to admit Dominion correspondence and other outside material
Defense counsel sought to introduce correspondence from Dominion Voting Systems and to subpoena Dominion’s attorney to support claims that vendor communications undercut the prosecution’s narrative; a state judge excluded a Dominion letter and quashed the defense subpoena at trial, blocking that line of proof from jurors [2]. Throughout trial, the defense also pushed broader inquiries about machine manufacture, internet connectivity, and other election-system topics that judges treated as tangential and repeatedly curtailed [3] [6].
3. Witness strategy: shifting culpability onto associates and highlighting cooperating witnesses’ credibility
The defense relied on testimony from allies like Sherronna Bishop to show others’ involvement and to portray Peters as acting with community-allied actors; Bishop testified that she introduced participants and was central to some planning [6]. The defense tried to cast Gerald Wood and Conan Hayes as participants or dupes in a broader effort, introducing evidence and cross-examination intended to show complicity rather than criminal deception [5] [6]. At the same time, the prosecution presented cooperating witnesses such as Belinda Knisley, who pled guilty and testified that she knew of and participated in a scheme with Peters — evidence the defense sought to rebut [7] [8].
4. Forensic and documentary evidence contested at trial
Prosecution evidence admitted at trial included testimony about copied hard drives, unauthorized photos from the “trusted build,” and Peters allegedly instructing staff to use disposable phones, Signal, and non-county email — items the defense had to confront while arguing context and intent [8] [9]. The defense attempted to reframe such documentary items as efforts to protect sources or to pursue transparency, but judges limited arguments that wandered into broader conspiracy claims about Dominion or national election fraud [3] [6].
5. Post-conviction strategy: appeals, habeas filings, requests for bond and a presidential pardon
After conviction, Peters’ attorneys have pursued direct appeals and habeas challenges raising the same evidentiary and legal arguments about immunity, compulsion to act, and trial rulings; a federal magistrate heard habeas arguments but expressed skepticism that some claims met exhaustion requirements [10] [1]. A bid for release on bond during appeal was denied amid prosecutors’ assertions that Peters remained a flight and public-safety risk and that she relied on invalid defenses [4]. Most recently, defense counsel sought a presidential pardon from Donald J. Trump, framing newly released material and expanding federal attention as supporting Peters’ claims — a political-legal gambit that also underscores the defense’s shift to extrajudicial remedies [2] [11].
6. Courtroom limits and prosecutorial rebuttal
Courts have repeatedly constrained the defense’s broader election-conspiracy narrative, with prosecutors asking judges to rein in defense counsel for straying from case facts and with judges excluding certain materials and testimony as irrelevant or prejudicial [3]. Prosecutors maintain that the admitted record establishes unauthorized access to election equipment and that defense efforts to shift blame or introduce vendor correspondence were either legally inappropriate or factually unsupported [4] [3].