Tina Peters Wins Contempt Appeal, Transferred to Larimer County

By Ashe Epps December 16, 2024

from The Colorado Free Press

Before Tina Peters’ Mesa County trial in August 2024 for lying to Jena Griswold’s office, the former County Clerk was found in contempt of court for recording the court proceedings of her former staffer, Belinda Knisely. 

That contempt finding was referenced as a compounding circumstance by Judge Matthew Barrett in his cruel, unusual, and unprecedented sentencing of Peters to nine years following her conviction. Peters’ contempt finding was part of the judge’s severity calculus. 

“You have no qualms with violating the court's orders because - you are innocent - because you didn't do anything wrong - you were just doing your job. You have no problem trying to kick an officer,” Barrett said during his October 3, 2024 sentencing. 

In July, Peters appealed the contempt finding, and  on Thursday, the Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the judgement of contempt and overturned the penalties, ruling in Tina’s favor. (see the article from Courthouse News at the end)

Whether this victory impacts Peters’ overall condition remains to be seen, but her attorneys are certain to argue that it should. And they may have a valid argument, at least when it comes to her sentencing. 

Judge Barrett, given his remarks at sentencing, relied upon the unrelated contempt saga in his determination to sentence her so severely. That calculation is now flawed and warrants further review. Peters appellant brief is expected to be filed sometime in February 2025. 

Peters made additional headlines Thursday as she was transferred to the Larimer County jail in Fort Collins, after raising concerns about her safety in Mesa County. 

Read the statement from the Mesa County Sheriff’s Department, posted Wednesday on their website, here:

Also, from Courthouse News on December 23, 2024:

DENVER (CN) — The Colorado Court of Appeals on Thursday vacated a contempt citation against former Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters, after finding insufficient evidence to support the claim that she violated a court prohibition on recording in the courtroom in 2022.

"Peters is correct that the contempt judgment lacks several required findings, without which it cannot stand,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge Stephanie Dunn in a 9-page opinion.

.....On Feb. 7, 2022, before the district attorney’s office filed charges against Peters, she attended a court hearing in support of Knisley. During the hearing, the district attorney’s staff told 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett they saw Peters recording the proceeding on an iPad. At the time, prosecutors claimed, Barrett had issued a decorum order prohibiting recording and relayed the information by posting a sign on the courtroom door.

The next day, law enforcement seized the device from Peters. On Feb. 24, 2022, the district attorney’s office filed to cite Peters for contempt. Following Barret's recusal, Fifth Judicial District Chief Judge Paul Dunkelman presided over Peter's 2023 contempt trial and ultimately ordered her to pay a $1,500 fine.

Peters appealed the contempt conviction, arguing the DA's office failed to meet its burden of proof by not presenting the court order, or the door sign, announcing the prohibition on recording.

Four factors are required to support punitive contempt sanctions under Colorado law: an order must exist, which the defendant must be aware of, be capable of following, and then intentionally disobey.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Peters, finding the lower court failed to establish that an order prohibiting recording in the court existed at all, much less that Peters purposefully violated it.  

"It’s unknown what the sign said or whether it was a court order,” Dunn wrote. "Thus, the record is devoid of any evidence about the existence, scope, or content of the court order that Peters allegedly violated."

Court of Appeals Judge Christina Gomez and Senior Judge Daniel Taubman concurred. All three members of the appellate panel were appointed by Democratic governors: Gomez by Jared Polis, Dunn by John Hickenlooper and Taubman by Bill Ritter.

In an email, 21st Judicial District Attorney Dan Rubinstein said he disagreed with the opinion, but didn't see a benefit in appealing.