Which defense witnesses testified on behalf of Tina Peters and what did they claim?
Executive summary
The defense in Tina Peters’ Mesa County trial called a small slate of witnesses to rebut prosecution claims that Peters facilitated an unauthorized person’s access to election equipment and stole an employee’s identity; the most prominent defense witness was conservative activist Sherronna Bishop, who testified that Gerald Wood consented to the plan and that Wood was a willing participant [1] [2]. The defense amplified themes that county practices were not clearly illegal in 2021, that some participants consented, and that questions about who actually handled the data and why remained unresolved; Peters ultimately declined to testify as her team rested after eight days of testimony [3] [4].
1. Sherronna Bishop — the defense’s central eyewitness who supplied an alternative narrative
Sherronna Bishop, a longtime ally of Peters and prominent conservative activist, was the first and most prominent defense witness and told jurors that Gerald Wood knowingly allowed his identity to be used so a different person — later identified as Conan Hayes — could remain anonymous while accessing electoral systems, directly contradicting Wood’s earlier testimony that his identity was stolen [1] [2]. Bishop testified she and others were “very much aligned” with Wood and that he was “happy to be a part of it,” a claim defense attorneys used to undermine the prosecution’s portrait of deception and identity theft [4]. Prosecutors, however, had previously placed Bishop at the center of efforts to make clandestine copies of hard drives and to coordinate access to the “trusted build” update, making her credibility a focal point for jurors [1].
2. Local supporters and staff — testimony aimed at motive and context, not exoneration
Beyond Bishop, the defense put forward at least one longtime supporter and other witnesses tied to Peters’ circle whose testimony sought to humanize Peters’ motives and to suggest her actions flowed from concerns about election integrity rather than criminal intent; one such supporter took the stand as the defense opened its case [2]. Defense questioning also attempted to cast doubt on accounts from former Mesa County employees who testified for the prosecution by pointing to conflicting memories, illness, or the political context surrounding Peters’ actions — arguments that were designed to suggest reasonable doubt rather than to supply an alternate chain of physical evidence [5] [2].
3. Expert and procedural themes the defense emphasized in courtrooms and filings
Defense attorneys repeatedly sought to introduce broader questions about election procedures and the legality of actions in 2021, arguing through witnesses and courtroom argument that “trusted builds” were not publicly conducted events at the time and that best practices — though evolving — did not make Peters’ conduct plainly illegal then, a point defense counsel raised during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses [3]. The defense also floated the contention that outside actors could have been government informants and sought protections or anonymity for consultants, contending Peters had promised confidentiality for a consultant whose identity she withheld — a line of argument used to challenge the prosecution narrative about Mens’ motives and secrecy [3].
4. What the defense did not do — Peters declines to testify and the case proceeds to appeal themes
Despite calling Bishop and other defense witnesses over an eight-day defense presentation, Tina Peters chose not to take the stand in her own defense before the defense rested, a tactical decision reported alongside accounts that the defense had tried and failed at times to admit evidence like correspondence from Dominion — decisions that framed later appeals and filings about what evidence should have been allowed [4] [6]. The defense’s witnesses emphasized consent, motive, evolving procedural norms, and competing accounts of who authorized access, but those claims stood against prosecution witnesses who described unauthorized copying of drives, shipping of hard drives to California, and testimony that some local employees faced legal consequences — leaving jurors to weigh credibility gaps and factual conflicts presented by both sides [7] [8].