Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters filed an appellate brief challenging her trial’s integrity, claiming constitutional violations and judicial misconduct that may overturn her conviction on charges related to voting equipment access.
At a Glance
- Tina Peters’ appellate brief filed Saturday challenges trial outcomes and alleges numerous due process violations
- Brief contends Peters was denied immunity under the Supremacy Clause and Privileges or Immunities Clause
- Filing claims inadequate evidence, denial of complete defense strategy, and improper jury instructions
- Legal team includes prominent attorneys and received support from Patrick Byrne and Juan O’Savin
- Appeal follows Peters’ conviction on charges related to unauthorized voting equipment access
Constitutional Immunity Claims Central to Appeal
The newly filed appellate brief for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters directly challenges the district court’s decision to deny her motion to dismiss based on constitutional immunity claims. Peters was indicted on 10 criminal counts related to unauthorized access to voting equipment and distribution of confidential information after a state investigation. Her defense has consistently maintained that her actions were protected under the First Amendment and that she should be immune from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause.
The U.S. Court of Appeals previously affirmed a district court’s decision to abstain from intervening in Peters’ state prosecution under the Younger v. Harris doctrine, finding she failed to demonstrate the state prosecution was conducted in bad faith or was retaliatory. Peters’ legal team now argues this ruling was improper and that constitutional protections should have shielded her from prosecution.
Tina Peters will go down in American history as a heroic figure & those who put her behind bars to cover up their crimes should take note. Thankfully there are people like those at American Rights Alliance & these attorneys who are not afraid to do the right thing. We still have… https://t.co/ebu0lmvfRL
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) May 31, 2025
Due Process Violations Alleged Throughout Trial
The appellate brief outlines multiple alleged due process violations that Peters’ legal team argues compromised the integrity of her trial. These violations include the denial of an opportunity to present a complete defense, refusal to instruct the jury on certain defenses, inadequate notice of charges, and misleading statements by the prosecution. The brief also highlights the court’s refusal to investigate juror misconduct allegations, which Peters’ team argues further undermined the fairness of proceedings.
The defense further contends that a prosecutor’s false statement during the trial necessitates a new proceeding. According to the filing, these cumulative errors prevented Peters from receiving a fair trial and violated her constitutional rights to due process. The brief specifically questions whether the evidence presented against Peters was sufficient to support her conviction on the charges brought against her.
Tina's Opening Brief in her Appeal was filed on Monday in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
She has two cases, the Habeas Corpus case in Federal Court is to get her out of prison while this Appeal is pending.
Please pray that Tina is released soon, she has already endured 7 months… pic.twitter.com/djpu3jQjxP
— Tina Peters🇺🇸 Whistleblower of fallen Navy SEAL (@realtinapeters) May 7, 2025
Sentencing Challenges and Legal Collaboration
Peters’ appellate brief also takes aim at her sentencing, arguing it violated constitutional amendments and was improperly influenced by a vacated contempt conviction. This aspect of the appeal suggests that even if the conviction were to stand, the punishment imposed was excessive and legally improper. The defense argues that the court’s consideration of the vacated contempt conviction tainted the sentencing phase and resulted in an unfair outcome.
The appellate brief’s filing was announced by Treniss Evans on social media, who highlighted the collaborative effort behind the document. The legal team includes several prominent attorneys who contributed to the brief’s preparation, with financial and logistical support from businessman Patrick Byrne and commentator Juan O’Savin. The American Rights Alliance is credited with coordinating the effort to challenge what Peters’ supporters view as a politically motivated prosecution meant to silence election integrity concerns.
