This is a rough transcript of the remarks made by Judge Matthew Barrett on Thursday, Oct. 3, 2024 in the Mesa County Justice Center on the Tina Peters case. Minor edits have been made for clarity.

Barrett has been a judge in the 21st Judicial District since July 2019. 

Peters was sentenced to six months in the Mesa County Detention Center and 8 ½ years in prison for her conviction on four felonies and three misdemeanor counts related to election tampering.

Judge Matthew Barrett:

All right, we’re here today for sentencing in Ms. Peters’ case. Before I get into my comments, I’ll enter judgment of conviction, consistent with the jury’s verdicts as to counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. 

As it relates to fines, fees, and costs: A $2,000 fine will be ordered as to counts 1, 2, 4, 6, as to counts eight, nine, I’m sorry, eight. The maximum fine will be imposed, counts nine and ten, $1,000 fines will be imposed. (Editor’s note: that’s a total of $3,000 in fines.)

You retain the right to ask me to reconsider any sentence I impose under Rule 35 B. You have the right to appeal any sentence I impose, if you want to end this judgments of conviction, if you wish to do that, you need to do it within 49 days of today’s date. 

The protection orders will remain in place during the life of this sentence. Condition six and seven are vacated. However, you can ask your lawyer what that means. If you are ever sentenced or today sentenced to the Department of Corrections, then I’m required to inform you that the time I actually imposed, or that may be imposed, is not  the amount of time you are likely to serve. It can be and very likely will be reduced by your accrual of good time and earn time credits within the department, meaning that the better you do in prison, the more programming you take advantage of, the sooner you’ll be released.

I want to circle back to the request from earlier today in terms of the motion for a new trial based on a Brady violation, to the extent I needed to make findings on that today I’ll note that one, the motion could have been filed weeks ago. Two, the information generally was known to the defense prior to trial, perhaps not the specifics, but enough to have at least mustered some questioning of witnesses at trial. And three, that a Brady violation is one that generally involves, almost exclusively involves the withholding of exculpatory evidence that may be used by the defendant in a case. When looking at such a violation, the court looks at that type of evidence through the lens of a defense attorney, not through a prosecutor, such that it’s not the prosecutor’s job to determine what is or isn’t exculpatory. It’s the defendant’s job to make those decisions. 

Here the argument is that back on, I believe June 25th, Ms. Peters went to the Clerk and Recorder’s, not office, but where the ballot box is located, some distance, I don’t know if it’s a hundred feet or not away from the actual physical office. She went there with at least one camera person. It looks like maybe someone else was also there with her, apparently she was voting. She had some conversations, according to the affidavit that’s been drafted for her arrest in that case, with election officials who would be employees of the Clerk and Recorder’s office, which she was not allowed to have conversations with. Her presence was noted by Ms. Bantz, one of the witnesses in this case who alerted law enforcement, who then did the investigation that resulted in everything I just said being uncovered and ultimately, that warrant being drafted. 

The defense made some requests for that information, once through the police department. It was denied according to the defendant because it was an ongoing investigation. The DA said that they didn’t have anything, if I’m not mistaken, but that they would turn it over later when they got it. They didn’t do so. It looks like the warrant was drafted well after the trial occurred. 

So it is well settled that for the purposes of discovery, evidence that could be used to impeach a witness, motivations that would fall under a Brady type of requirement to be disclosed. But as I said earlier, there’s quite literally nothing that’s been provided to me that suggests anything in this arrest warrant or that what Ms. Bantz said, who was an important witness to the prosecution, would be construed objectively or even subjectively through the lens of a defense attorney as favorable or exculpatory to the defendant, particularly where there’s video footage of the interaction that occurred between the defendant and the individuals who may have been employees of the Clerk and Recorder’s office.

So Ms. Bantz’s mere reporting of the same to law enforcement is what it is and certainly in any event, to the extent there was exculpatory value to it, as the case law says, it was incredibly minimal, and could not undermine the confidence in the verdict. Nevertheless, let the people respond to it. And to the extent I might not be divested of jurisdiction to consider it, hold a hearing on the same, if I find one is warranted after further briefing, I make that record, just to close that loop for the purposes of any appeal issue that might come up in the future.

The purposes of sentencing have been alluded to, particularly by the prosecution. I’m not going to repeat them all, but I say generally the same thing. That is, the purposes are statutory and they include but are not limited to promoting the acceptance of responsibility. 

That doesn’t mean that a defendant has to take responsibility. To the contrary, Ms. Peters has exercised her right to a jury trial. She’s exercised her right to hold the people to their burden, and such cannot and will not be used by this court as a means by which, or justification by which to punish her. 

But rather, the sentence itself is to promote the responsibility acceptance, not to ensure that someone takes responsibility, however, once they’ve chosen to exercise their right to go to trial. 

I consider deterrence in sentencing that is both general and specific that the sentence I impose must deter Ms. Peters from engaging in similar conduct in the future, but it also must deter others generally from engaging in this type of conduct. I consider rehabilitation where appropriate. I consider punishment where appropriate. I also must ensure that the sentences I impose are consistent among offenders similarly situated, but I must also impose a sentence that is designed to meet Ms. Peters’s unique needs.

Here, the defense has, and Ms. Peters in particular, has remained quite defiant, which is her right, but certainly not helpful for her lot today. And in arguing why I should impose a particular sentence, she tells me about her ailments, her loss, her struggles, in life. 

But in reality, for those of you who may have been here earlier this morning and seeing some of the folks who’ve occupied that chair before Ms. Peters, there could be not much in the way of a comparison in terms of the type of sympathy one would extend to Ms. Peters. 

Those folks didn’t have four lawyers representing them. They didn’t have a team of assistants helping them. They’re not getting rides in private jets all over the country. 

You know the people who sit in that chair struggle generally speaking, immeasurable trauma in life, struggle mightily with alcohol abuse, substance abuse, mental health struggles, family loss. They come from broken homes. The cards they were dealt were never the cards that you were dealt, Ms. Peters. 

So when I hear you discuss, your husband, sadly passed away recently, your family struggles and your son who served our country admirably and made the ultimate sacrifice, I consider it. 

And I note too, that he honored his oath to the country, something that is not lost on me when considering the circumstances under which you find yourself here.

Your age, limited criminal history and the like, are certainly somewhat mitigating, your ties to the community are what they are, but your reputation at this point is poor because of what you’ve done here and after. 

Your lies are well documented and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen. 

You don’t have those histories of drug and alcohol abuse. There’s no lifetime of trauma, not even close to the type of mitigating circumstances I would see from many folks who sit in that chair, No, to the contrary, Ms. Peters, you are a privileged person.

You are as privileged as they come. And you use that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame. And to be sure, there’s no doubt in my mind that it is exactly what you wanted, and it defies all sense, of common sense, to believe when you suggested to me a few moments ago that you didn’t want this attention. No, you, you crave it, ma’am, and there is no one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth. 

But to get to the point of what it is that you did here, it’s my impression distinctly that you never took your job of clerking particularly seriously. 

You didn’t complete the certification. One scandal after another followed you in your time as the clerk. And ultimately it was a belief that the echo chamber in which you live couldn’t be wrong among other things, that led you to do what you did here. This thought process unfortunately seems to consume so many in our country, regardless of race, gender, political affiliation or the like, that what it is we hear and think can’t possibly be wrong. 

There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. In your world, it’s all about you.

But at bottom, this case was about your corrupt conduct and how no one is above the law. No one in this country has absolute power. Your position as a clerk and recorder, a constitutional position, does not provide you with a means by which to do your own investigation, to not listen to the judiciary, to not listen to the executives higher than you, to not listen to the legislature who sets the law as it may be. 

This is nonsense. 

Our system of government can’t function when people in government think that somehow, some way the power they’ve been given is absolute in all respects. And that’s where you fell. 

You have no respect for the checks and balances of government. You have no respect for this court. You have no respect for law enforcement, and you do not have respect for your fellow colleagues when you were a clerk and recorder who weren’t in lockstep in your beliefs. 

Indeed, just weeks before trial, you were apparently doing what I mentioned earlier, that is over at the clerk and recorder’s office, where you’re not supposed to be, violating the protection order by speaking to employees of that entity with your camera crew in tow.

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. 

Your explanation about what happened is preposterous. It’s on video. You have no problem lying to officers. It’s happened multiple times. They’re recorded conversations. It’s just more lies. 

No objective person believes them. No, at the end of the day, you cared about the jets, the podcasts, and the people fawning over you. You abdicated your position as a servant to the constitution and you chose you over all else.

Yes, you are a charlatan and you cannot help but lie as easy as it is for you to breathe. You betrayed your oath for no one other than you.

And this is what makes Ms. Peters such a danger to our community. It’s the position she held that has provided her the pulpit from which she can preach these lies, the undermining of our democratic process, the undermining of the belief and confidence in our election systems. It’s not about questioning it. No one says you can’t question, you can’t ask. It’s completely different. And if you don’t understand that distinction, then there’s nothing I can say or do here today that will change your mind. 

So the damage that is caused and continues to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis. And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you. 

Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and public’s trust in our institutions has been made by you. You’ve done it from that lectern the voting public provided you with, everything you’ve done has been done to retain control, influence. The damage is immeasurable.

And every time it gets refuted, every time it’s shown to be false, just another tale is weaved. 

So I’ll begin by saying I’ve considered all of those purposes of a stay of an execution of a sentence. I’ve mentioned all of them here generally in my comments already, and I find that a stay of any sentence I impose would be wholly unwarranted. 

All cases have a possibility of reversal on appeal, no doubt. I’m at peace with all the decisions I’ve made here. If anything I gave you and your counsel far too much leeway at times. But the rulings I made came at after much consideration, incredible amounts of internal debate and I trust in accordance with the applicable law.

I consider the sentence here in this case what are available to me. Probation. Community corrections wasn’t requested, but it wouldn’t be an option in any event, and an incarcerated sentence to the Department of Corrections, probation’s focus is rehabilitation. That is for folks who have minimal criminal histories, low LSI scores like you, Ms. Peters.

But where punishment isn’t really on the table. It’s about putting someone back in the community who’s not at risk and giving them a chance to correct those things that brought them before me in the first place. Community corrections, which again isn’t available, but nevertheless I’ll mention, is another option that I could still order.

It’s much more stringent than probation, but it’s not prison. And it’s for folks who have even higher needs. Again, drug addicts, alcohol abusers, and the like. And prison is for those folks where we send people who are a danger to all of us, whether it be by the pen or the sword or the word of the mouth. Prison is where folks go where punishment is what we’re focused on, because the crime committed is so significant that anything less would unduly mitigate the seriousness of the same. 

I mentioned before there are no mental health concerns. There’s no good reason why you’re here, Ms. Peters, other than these are all the active decisions that you made that cost our county significantly, but also more importantly, cost you greatly, Mr. [Gerald] Wood, all the members of the county who worked and trusted you when you asked them to do things that they did on your behalf as part of your lies. The expense, the toll is immeasurable.

So putting you on probation when you have zero needs that would be met by probation is the very definition of unduly depreciating the significance of what it is that you’ve done here, the harm that you’ve caused our community and continue to cause. Community corrections is the same. So prison is the only place that duly meets the purposes of sentencing in this matter. 

And therefore the sentence and judgment of the court is as follows: As to counts one and four, the judgment and sentence of the court is three and a half years in the Department of Corrections. Those sentences will be concurrent to each other. 

As to count two, the judgment and sentence of the court is three and a half years consecutive to counts one and four. 

As it relates to the misdemeanor charges, count eight is 120 days in the Mesa County Detention Facility concurrent to count nine and 10, which will be six months in the Mesa County Detention Facility, consecutive to the prison sentence. The reason those sentences are consecutive is because those sentences are as the prosecution stated directly related to what it is that you did here in our community, the damage you caused this community, the breach of your oath to the electorate in Mesa County.

Your sentence will be followed by three years of parole. You have two days of presentence confinement credit. 

Anything I missed? Anything else we need to address?

(Prosecutor)

Judge, I think you missed a sentencing on count six.

Barrett:

Oh, I’m sorry. Count six is criminal impersonation. That’s also consecutive. That’s 15 months to the Department of Corrections.

So it’s eight and a half years total, plus the six months, for a total of nine years of incarceration.

Barrett was also asked by her attorneys about a stay of Peters’ sentence while the judgment is being appealed, which he reminded them he had already denied. She was taken into custody. 

To listen to the entire Oct. 3 hearing, go to https://www.youtube.com/live/Ks_P8NzBJEs?t=9537s, courtesy of 9News.