Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters faces another legal twist in her ongoing battles with Colorado's justice system.
According to Colorado Politics, Colorado's Court of Appeals has reversed Peters' contempt conviction and $1,500 fine related to an alleged iPad recording incident during a February 2022 court hearing.
The appeals court's decision, authored by Judge Stephanie Dunn on December 19, highlighted significant gaps in the original contempt ruling. The panel determined that the trial judge failed to establish several crucial elements necessary for a contempt finding, including identifying the specific court order Peters allegedly violated and proving her awareness of such an order.
The case originated during a hearing for Peters' deputy clerk, Belinda Knisley, where district attorney's office employees claimed they witnessed Peters recording on her iPad.
When questioned directly by District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett about the recording, Peters denied the accusation. Barrett issued a warning about recording prohibition but did not make an explicit finding about Peters' alleged actions.
District Attorney Daniel P. Rubinstein later pursued contempt charges against Peters. During the subsequent trial, witnesses testified to observing Peters holding her iPad in a recording position and allegedly making comments suggesting she had recorded the proceedings. Retired District Judge Paul R. Dunkelman, who presided over the contempt case, found these witnesses credible.
Judge Dunkelman's assessment of Peters' actions was clear, as stated in his ruling:
She was recording a proceeding. She was doing so covertly. She hid the fact when called out on it by Judge Barrett — certainly an indication to this court that Ms. Peters was aware it was not acceptable, if not a violation of a court order.
The three-judge appeals panel, led by Judge Stephanie Dunn, identified multiple deficiencies in the contempt ruling. They noted that the trial court failed to specify which order Peters violated - whether it was the sign on the door or the "decorum order." Additionally, neither document was presented as evidence during the trial.
The appeals court emphasized that mere awareness of unacceptable conduct does not constitute sufficient grounds for a punitive contempt finding. The panel also pointed out that the trial court never established Peters' willful violation of an order, a crucial element for contempt charges.
Peters' legal team successfully argued that the original contempt judgment lacked several required findings essential for such a ruling. The absence of these elements ultimately led to the reversal of both the contempt finding and the associated monetary penalty.
The overturning of Peters' contempt charge marks another chapter in her complex legal journey. Peters is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence following her conviction for attempting to influence a public servant and official misconduct stemming from a 2021 security breach of her office's elections equipment.
This recent appeals court decision demonstrates the technical nature of contempt proceedings and the necessity for trial courts to establish all required elements before imposing such penalties. The ruling highlights the importance of proper judicial procedure, even in cases involving individuals already convicted of other crimes.
The case reflects the ongoing scrutiny of legal proceedings involving Peters while emphasizing the appeals court's role in ensuring proper judicial procedures are followed, regardless of the defendant's other legal troubles.
