What legal defenses did Tina Peters' attorneys present against the cited documents and records?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tina Peters’ lawyers argued that her handling and preservation of election records was compelled or justified by a federal nexus and federal preservation law, and they have pushed an unprecedented claim that President Trump’s pardon can reach state convictions — a theory Colorado officials and legal observers dispute [1] [2] [3]. Courts so far have rejected Peters’ immediate release and limited the jury’s consideration of those federal-preservation defenses at trial; the federal habeas bid was dismissed and judges have denied bond while appeals proceed [1] [4] [5].
1. Defense framed as compliance with federal preservation duties
Peters’ core document-centered defense, as presented by her team and summarized in reporting, is that the materials she preserved could not legally be destroyed because federal preservation requirements applied — in short, she says she preserved evidence to comply with federal law rather than to commit a crime [1]. That legal narrative was advanced repeatedly by her lawyers to explain why she retained and shared certain election-related records [1].
2. Courts limited the jury’s exposure to that federal-law theory
At trial the judge barred the jury from hearing the defense that federal law required Peters’ conduct; prosecutors and the court proceeded without letting jurors evaluate whether federal preservation duties justified her actions or explained her intent [1]. That evidentiary ruling curtailed a potentially central factual context the defense wished to place before the factfinder [1].
3. Lawyers sought broader relief through federal filings and habeas strategy
Peters’ team pressed federal avenues after her conviction. A federal habeas petition challenging aspects of her detention and constitutional claims was filed but a federal judge dismissed that habeas petition on December 8, 2025, without resolving the merits of her constitutional arguments or the legality of the prosecution itself [1] [4]. Separately, bond and release motions were denied by federal judges [4] [5].
4. Novel pardon theory: President can pardon state offenses, lawyers say
Peters’ lead attorney publicly urged President Trump to intervene and later asserted that Trump had signed a formal pardon; Ticktin and others advanced a novel constitutional theory that a presidential pardon could apply to state convictions — an argument that would upend longstanding separation of state and federal clemency powers if accepted [6] [7] [3]. Peters’ lawyers have explicitly cited a “federal nexus” to the conduct as part of the argument for presidential authority to act [2] [3].
5. State officials and mainstream legal observers reject the pardon-as-cure
Colorado officials and many legal commentators reject the idea that a U.S. president can nullify state criminal sentences. Governor Polis and the Mesa County district attorney emphasized that Peters was convicted under Colorado law and that a presidential pardon traditionally does not erase state convictions; reporting notes the American Bar Association’s view that presidents cannot pardon state crimes [8] [9] [10]. The DA called the pardon request a “novel legal theory” and said it would not change state sentencing [2] [8].
6. Defense strategy mixes statutory preservation claim with broad constitutional and political remedies
Peters’ team combined a narrow evidentiary/preservation defense (federal document-preservation obligations) with sweeping constitutional and political remedies: federal habeas filings, public appeals to the president, and the argument that a presidential pardon should apply [1] [6] [7]. That dual approach seeks both legal adjudication in courts and political intervention — a strategy that invites conflicting forums and raises separation-of-powers questions [7] [3].
7. What the reporting does not say or resolve
Available sources do not provide a definitive judicial ruling accepting the preservation-defense as a lawful justification for Peters’ conduct; instead, courts limited its presentation to jurors and dismissed her federal habeas bid without resolving the constitutional merits [1] [4]. Available sources also do not record a final, binding legal determination that President Trump’s pardon legally voids Colorado’s state conviction — that claim remains contested in public reporting [6] [10].
8. Stakes and likely next steps
If courts continue to reject the federal-preservation defense and uphold the state conviction, Peters’ remaining avenues are appellate litigation and extraordinary political remedies; her lawyers are signaling they expect the issue to move through appeals and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court if the pardon question survives lower-court challenges [6] [7]. Colorado officials so far treat the pardon attempt as symbolic and maintain that state remedies, including gubernatorial clemency, remain the operative routes for relief [2] [8].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting; it does not include court opinions beyond the summaries cited, and it does not evaluate legal merits beyond what the sources report [1] [4] [3].