What defenses has Tina Peters entered and what plea options has she been offered?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tina Peters was convicted by a jury on state charges related to tampering with Mesa County voting equipment and sentenced to roughly nine years in prison; she pleaded not guilty at trial but has mounted appeals and constitutional challenges rather than accepting a state plea deal in public reporting [1] [2]. Her lawyers have pushed several defensive strategies — claiming First Amendment protection, filing federal habeas corpus litigation seeking release on bond while appealing, and asking for a transfer to federal custody — and have also sought a presidential pardon as an alternative to state relief [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Criminal conviction and initial posture: jury verdict, not a plea
Peters went to trial, was convicted by a jury on multiple state charges tied to a 2021 scheme involving the breach and handling of county election equipment, and received a prison sentence of about nine years — she did not resolve the case by pleading guilty, but maintained her innocence through trial and conviction [1] [2].
2. Plea options in reporting: public sources show no reported state plea deal offer
Available sources do not report that Peters accepted or publicly rejected a concrete state plea offer; instead, coverage highlights she pleaded not guilty and was tried and convicted, after which her legal team has focused on appeals and other remedies rather than documenting any formal plea negotiation in the public record [1] [2]. If there were plea offers or negotiations, the available sources do not mention them.
3. Constitutional and appellate defenses: First Amendment and habeas filings
Peters’ legal team has argued that aspects of the prosecution and post-conviction treatment implicate constitutional rights, including First Amendment claims that the state’s handling of her speech and conditions was improper; Colorado officials and the attorney general’s office have publicly opposed those First Amendment arguments [3]. Separately, Peters filed a federal habeas corpus petition seeking release on bond while she appeals, but a federal magistrate judge denied that request and declined to intervene in the ongoing state criminal process [4] [7].
4. Federal involvement and transfer efforts: pursuit of federal custody and DOJ review
Her lawyers and supporters sought to move Peters from state prison to federal custody; the Federal Bureau of Prisons sent a letter to Colorado authorities about a potential transfer and her team argued a federal facility would be safer during appeals [5]. The Justice Department has at times weighed in on related procedural fights — it backed efforts to obtain release in a federal forum and said it would review her case in March to support a federal appeal strategy, but the DOJ cannot overturn a state conviction [2].
5. Political remedies: unprecedented pardon plea and its limits
Peters’ attorney directly appealed to former President Donald Trump for a pardon, even advancing a novel argument that presidential clemency could reach state convictions — a position legal experts call unprecedented and unsupported. Trump publicly said he would pardon her; Colorado officials and constitutional experts note that presidential pardons apply only to federal offenses and therefore cannot erase state convictions, making such a pardon primarily symbolic in current reporting [6] [1] [8].
6. What her defense strategy signals politically and legally
Peters’ team has simultaneously pursued multiple avenues: constitutional litigation, federal habeas remedies, prison-transfer requests, and political clemency. That mix reflects an implicit strategy to leverage both courts and public advocacy to build pressure for relief. Critics and state officials frame these moves as political theater aimed at undermining the state conviction, while supporters see them as necessary escapes from what they call an unjust prosecution; Colorado’s elected officials have publicly defended the state court verdict and jurisdiction [3] [1] [8].
7. Limitations in reporting and open questions
Public reporting in the assembled sources documents her not-guilty plea, conviction, appeals, habeas bid, transfer request, and a high-profile pardon push, but does not detail any formal plea offers from Colorado prosecutors or whether such offers were made and rejected at any stage [1] [4] [5]. The sources also show disagreement between Peters’ legal arguments and state officials about constitutional claims and jurisdictional remedies [3] [7].
Summary judgment: Peters’ recorded defenses are appellate and constitutional — not a guilty plea — and her team has sought federal transfer and an extraordinary pardon while federal courts have declined to free her during appeals; available reporting does not document a public state plea offer that she accepted or formally rejected [4] [5] [6].