Rocky Mountain Voice reports that Tina Peters is asking the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn her convictions, or at least step into the case, after a juror in her 2024 trial said her business phone lines were cut during the trial and that she wondered for days whether she was being “targeted.”
This is not a Tina Peters fan-club meeting. The issue here is narrower, cleaner, and a lot more important: if a juror in a criminal trial believes she may be targeted while the trial is underway, why would a court not hold a hearing to find out whether that fear affected deliberations?
According to Rocky Mountain Voice, Peters’ attorneys asked for that hearing after a recorded juror interview surfaced. Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett denied the request the same day. The Colorado Court of Appeals later backed him up. Now Peters wants the Colorado Supreme Court to say that was not good enough.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Peters’ trial began July 29, 2024. On Friday, August 2, one juror’s business phone lines were cut. She reported it to police, paid $4,000 to restore the lines, and continued serving on the jury. That is not exactly the kind of “normal inconvenience” you toss in the junk drawer.
- The jury convicted Peters on August 12, 2024, on four felony counts and three misdemeanors. For more than a week before that verdict, the juror reportedly wondered whether she was being targeted. The court and attorneys did not know about it during trial.
- Weeks later, a private investigator working for the defense contacted the juror, and the conversation was recorded. According to the petition, the juror said the incident made her “very concerned” and that when the phone line was cut she was “done.” That does not prove outside influence. It does raise the obvious question competent adults usually ask: should we maybe look into this?
- Peters’ lawyers asked for a new trial and a hearing on September 20, 2024. They filed the supplemental brief at 7:43 a.m. Judge Barrett denied the request at 12:13 p.m. Same day service. Very efficient. Shame the efficiency was attached to not holding a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals agreed with Barrett, saying Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b) limited inquiry into the verdict and that Peters had not properly invoked an exception. Peters’ lawyers point to cases including Remmer v. United States, United States v. Cheek, and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado to argue courts can, and sometimes must, look behind the curtain when credible claims of outside influence or jury impartiality are at issue.
My Bottom Line
This is a due-process story, not a campaign rally with legal citations taped to the podium. You do not have to love Tina Peters, defend Tina Peters, or believe Tina Peters was right about anything to understand the basic point. Criminal trials require impartial jurors. If a juror says she feared she may have been targeted during the trial, the court should want to know whether that fear mattered.
Maybe the cut phone lines had nothing to do with the case. Fine. Great. Wonderful. Then hold the hearing, build the record, ask the questions, and let the facts take out the trash. That is how serious institutions behave. They do not wave vaguely at procedure and tell the public, “Trust us,” while stuffing the awkward parts into a drawer.
The courts keep telling Americans to respect the process. That message lands a lot better when the process does not look like a chimp with a gavel. Public confidence is not protected by pretending hard questions are rude. It is protected by airing them out in the proper forum, under oath, with everyone watching.
Again, this does not prove juror intimidation. It does not prove Peters is innocent. It does not prove the convictions are wrong. It proves there was a serious enough question to justify a serious answer. If the justice system wants legitimacy, it should stop acting like transparency is some exotic luxury item available only in appellate court gift shops.
Source: Rocky Mountain Voice
Share your thoughts...