Which witnesses received immunity in Tina Peters’ case and what testimony did they provide?
Executive summary
Gerald Wood was the most commonly reported witness who received an immunity agreement — described in court testimony as limited immunity before he testified to the grand jury — and he told jurors that he talked with Tina Peters about backing up election equipment and that Peters arranged a county access badge in his name [1] [2] [3]. Two other people tied to the events — identified in reporting as Knisley and Sandra Brown — resolved charges with plea deals that required them to testify against Peters, with Knisley admitting participation in a scheme to deceive public servants and Brown pleading guilty to attempting to influence a public servant and official misconduct, each condition tied to their cooperation [4].
1. Gerald Wood: limited immunity, badge-making and backup work
Gerald Wood testified for the prosecution after having sought and been given an immunity arrangement before his grand jury testimony; reporters and court testimony describe that immunity as limited rather than a blanket, full immunity, and prosecutors emphasized he could still face prosecution for perjury or other crimes if he lied [1] [2] [5]. On the stand Wood said Peters had spoken to him about backing up the county’s election equipment and that she arranged for a security badge made in his name to allow access to secured areas — testimony the secretary of state’s expert and other election staff corroborated when they recalled Peters introducing Wood at the trusted build and his presence during the events at issue [1] [3]. The defense used the immunity arrangement to attack Wood’s credibility in cross-examination, suggesting his cooperation was transactional and questioning why he did not immediately notify investigators if he believed himself innocent [1] [2].
2. Knisley and Brown: plea deals that required testimony
Court reporting and compiled public records note that at least two participants, Knisley and Sandra Brown, entered plea agreements that included cooperation provisions: Knisley pled guilty to trespass, official misconduct and a violation of duty as part of a deal to avoid prison in exchange for testifying that she knew about and participated in a scheme along with Peters to deceive public servants, and Brown pled guilty to attempting to influence a public servant and official misconduct as part of a plea that required her to testify against Peters [4]. Coverage frames those plea deals as standard prosecutorial practice to secure insider testimony about the coordination and intent behind the scheme alleged by the state, and both agreements were explicitly tied to their expected courtroom testimony [4].
3. How prosecutors and defense treated immunity and cooperation on the record
Prosecutors made the limited nature of Wood’s immunity clear on the record when questioned by the defense and the court, emphasizing that the immunity constrained certain uses of his statements but did not grant him carte blanche protection from prosecution for new or false acts; defense attorneys repeatedly pointed to the immunity agreements to suggest witnesses had motives to tailor testimony in exchange for leniency [2] [5]. The courtroom exchanges included procedural skirmishes — for example, Wood was subpoenaed by the prosecution and the defense’s attempt to subpoena him in-court produced friction when he left the stand and did not accept a defense-served paper subpoena — illustrating how the presence of cooperation agreements shaped trial tactics [1].
4. What the testimony covered and the limits of available reporting
Reported testimony by witnesses who cooperated focused on concrete operational details: who attended the trusted build, who was introduced as whom, the presence and use of access badges, efforts to image or back up EMS hard drives, and direct acknowledgments by cooperating witnesses that they participated in coordinated acts to mislead officials [1] [3] [4] [6]. Public reporting and the cited court documents, however, do not provide a fully transparent catalogue of every immunity or cooperation agreement in the case; available sources explicitly name Wood’s limited immunity and the plea-cooperation arrangements for Knisley and Brown but do not enumerate whether additional witnesses received similar agreements or the precise text of each agreement [1] [2] [4].
5. Competing narratives and why immunity mattered to both sides
Prosecutors used cooperating witnesses to establish a sequence of acts and intent — showing Peters helped outsiders access election equipment and facilitated backup or copying — while the defense sought to discredit those witnesses by highlighting plea deals and limited immunity as motives to shift blame onto Peters; that contest over credibility was central to cross-examination and closing arguments [1] [2] [7]. Reporting shows both sides treated immunity and plea cooperation as a double-edged sword: necessary to unlock insider testimony but also a focal point for attacking witness reliability, and the public record available in the cited coverage confirms the presence and content of those agreements only in the cases described rather than as an exhaustive roster [1] [2] [4].