By Lindy Browning | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
In a court order filed Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024, the Court of Appeals ruled that the case against Tina Peters concerning a contempt of court conviction over an iPad recording in Mesa County be vacated.
Her attorney John Case said in a written statement, “The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed Tina’s conviction for contempt and vacated the judgment, meaning that the contempt case is over and there will be no retrial. She had been found innocent of recording a judicial proceeding and innocent of lying to Judge Barrett. The basis of the ruling was that [District Attorney] Dan Rubinstein failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.”
In response to Case’s statement, Rubinstein wrote, “… there is no such thing as being ‘found innocent.’ The trial judge found her guilty, and the court of appeals disagreed.”
The origins of the case
This vacated contempt charge is not connected to the four felonies and three misdemeanors for which Peters is currently serving jail time.
This case involves an allegation and contempt charge and conviction over allegedly recording a video with her iPad, during court proceedings in February 2022, concerning the trial of her former Deputy County Clerk Belinda Knisley.
Police video dated Feb. 8, 2022, showed Grand Junction police trying to execute a search warrant for an iPad belonging to Peters at a local restaurant. During the attempt to seize the iPad, she was seen screaming at police and then crying and ultimately attempting to hit and kick the officers who were there to serve a search warrant.
The video can be found on YouTube. While police were only there on Feb. 8, 2022, to execute the search warrant, as a result of her actions on Feb. 8, a warrant for her arrest for obstructing a police officer was issued Feb. 9. Although Peters was not convicted of resisting arrest, the iPad was located and seized by Grand Junction police.
In May 2023, she was found guilty of contempt and fined $1,500. Over the course of her trial related to the iPad recording, three different judges were involved with the case, according to reporting at the time. They were the judge from the original Knisley hearing, a second judge issuing the contempt citation, and a third judge altogether conducted the hearing at issue in the appeal.
Appellate Ruling
Case, who is representing Peters in a plethora of legal cases, filed an appeal on the iPad recording case with the Colorado Appellate Court and the court vacated the case Thursday.
Taken directly from the language of the court order, the court found that prosecutors in the case did not meet all the criteria necessary to convict Peters.
Case History and Findings
“This contempt proceeding arises out of a criminal case filed against Belinda Knisley, one of Peters’ former employees in Grand Junction, Colo. In February 2022, Peters attended a hearing in Knisley’s case. At that hearing, the prosecution reported concerns to the court that Peters was recording the proceeding on her iPad,” reads the order.
The court stopped the hearing and asked Peters whether she was recording the proceeding. Peters denied recording it. The judge then explained that “there’s a sign on the door that says no recording, video, audio; it’s all common sense for most folks to know that.”
According to the order from the Court of Appeals, the Mesa Court added that “this is the one warning” and if it found that someone had violated this order in the future, then the court would take appropriate action.” Later, the court revisited the allegation and made the following additional comments.
“It had come to the court’s attention that someone may have been recording in the courtroom. I do not find one way or another as to whether that person was recording, or broadcasting, or audio recording, video recording or whatever it may have been. That individual told me that they were not doing any of those three things,” said the Mesa Court judge.
The judge said he relied on that representation in not entering any type of action at that time. If I had known, if it had been confirmed, I would have done something differently, and that’s in-part, because there is a decorum order that I entered in Ms. Knisley’s case.” He also noted that there’s also a sign on the outside of the door that specifically says that no one is authorized to take audio or video recordings of proceedings.
A few weeks later, the district attorney’s office moved for a contempt citation against Peters, requiring her to demonstrate why she should not be held in contempt for the Knisley court.
During the Peters’ contempt hearing, the prosecution presented three witnesses who testified about Peters’ conduct. After the hearing, the district court entered an oral ruling finding that Peters had recorded the proceeding and was dishonest to the Knisley court. The court in Mesa County found that Peters’ dishonesty “obstructed the administration of justice.”
Peter’s attorney, John Case, argued to the Appellate Court that the contempt judgment can’t stand because insufficient evidence and findings supported it.
“We agree. A party seeking punitive sanctions for contempt must prove — and a court must find — beyond a reasonable doubt that; a lawful order existed, the alleged person charged with contempt had knowledge of that order, the alleged person had the ability to comply with that order, and the alleged person willfully refused to comply with that order,” wrote the Court of Appeals.
Citing multiple case law concerning the burden of proof, mostly related to divorce cases and a couple of ranching disputes, the Court of Appeals made its ruling to vacate. The order was written by Judge Gomez with Judge Taubman concurring.
In a statement to Rocky Mountain Voice, District Attorney Dan Rubinstein wrote, “I am disappointed with the decision of the appellate court and respectfully disagree with the reasoning, as I believe they failed to understand the trial judge’s ruling.”
Continuing, he said, “The trial court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Peters was in contempt for lying to Judge Barrett. The appellate court incorrectly confused that with a finding of contempt for recording proceedings in violation of the order prohibiting the recording.”
“What was important about the contempt action being pursued was the effect that an additional finding of Ms. Peters’ dishonesty would have on her sentences in the elections case. Regardless of today’s ruling, the fact remains that the trial court concluded that Ms. Peters was dishonest to a judge, beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, there is no additional benefit in litigating the contempt case any further,” Rubinstein concluded.