What did prosecution witnesses testify about Conan Hayes and the hard drives in the Tina Peters trial?
Executive summary
Prosecution witnesses described a coordinated effort in May 2021 in which an outsider identified by prosecutors as Conan Hayes was covertly brought into Mesa County’s secure “trusted build” to copy election-system data, with photos and disk images later appearing online; witnesses said county badge misuse, a mailed package and disabled cameras were central to that scheme [1] [2] [3]. Witness testimony tied county employees and associates of Tina Peters to helping Hayes gain access, and prosecutors presented testimony that the images and a hard drive containing passwords ended up in California and on conspiracy forums [4] [5] [6].
1. Prosecution’s core narrative: an outsider brought in using a stolen identity
Multiple prosecution witnesses testified that Peters allowed an individual into the secure update who was represented to officials as county employee Gerald Wood but was actually Conan Hayes, a California resident described in reporting as a self‑styled data expert and believer in 2020 election conspiracy theories; prosecutors say Hayes used Wood’s badge to enter the trusted build for a software update in May 2021 [2] [1] [7].
2. Badge procurement and inside cooperation: testimony from Knisley and others
Brenda Knisley, Peters’ former deputy who later pleaded guilty and cooperated, testified that she helped obtain a security badge tied to Gerald Wood and that she understood that the badge would be used by another man — identified by prosecutors as Hayes — to access the voting machines [4]. Other prosecution witnesses corroborated a pattern of internal assistance that enabled an unauthorized person to be present during the trusted build [8].
3. The hard drive, package, and photos: physical trail presented in court
Employees testified that a hard drive containing Mesa County passwords and forensic images was created and that someone mailed a package containing confidential election information to Conan Hayes in California, according to investigators and testimony presented by prosecutors [3] [5] [9]. Witnesses also described unauthorized photographs taken of equipment and passwords during the update that later circulated online, which triggered the Secretary of State’s investigation [10] [11].
4. Secret recordings, disabled cameras, and contemporaneous alarm
Prosecution witnesses, including elections staff who made a clandestine recording of a May 2021 meeting, testified that Peters ordered surveillance cameras turned off during the late-night activity, and that the unusual timing and camera shutdown were part of the prosecution’s depiction of a planned effort to clandestinely copy machines [8] [2]. Those recordings and security logs were used to connect personnel movements and timing to the alleged breach [8].
5. Hayes’ online role and the public leak: testimony tying him to postings
Prosecutors pointed to testimony and later events showing that images and disk images tied to Mesa County’s systems were published to conspiracy channels and that a hard drive with sensitive information was mailed to Hayes; reporting notes that images of hard drives and software were later posted on fringe forums, which precipitated the official inquiry [3] [6]. Witnesses said the timing of the images and the presence of the outsider at the trusted build were causally linked in investigators’ accounts [11].
6. Limits, defense counterclaims, and evidentiary boundaries in court
The defense emphasized alternate explanations: some witnesses supporting the defense said Wood consented or was aligned, and Sherronna Bishop testified she helped introduce Hayes and claimed coordination among Peters, Wood and others [7] [1]. The defense also sought to argue Peters believed Hayes was a government informant, but the judge barred that claim from jurors after prosecutors said there was no evidence he was an informant [1] [11]. Hayes himself was not charged in the prosecution’s case, and some contested messages and Signal chats shown in court were restricted or not independently authenticated [2] [12].
7. Outcome and prosecutorial portrait of responsibility
Prosecutors used the cumulative testimony — badge misuse, an allegedly mailed hard drive, photos and disabled cameras — to depict a deliberate scheme that Peters facilitated; reporting indicates the jury later convicted Peters on multiple counts and that prosecutors said Hayes created and posted the images that triggered the investigation [1] [6]. Reporting also documents plea deals for cooperating witnesses like Knisley, which the prosecution relied upon to reconstruct events [4] [10].