Fogbow

Jury has reached a verdict. 7:11 EDT.

Count 1 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 2 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 3 - Not Guilty: Conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation
Count 4 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 5 - Not Guilty: Criminal impersonation
Count 6 - Guilty: Conspiracy to to commit criminal impersonation
Count 7 - Not Guilty: Identity theft
Count 8 - Guilty: First degree official misconduct
Count 9 - Guilty: Violation of a duty
Count 10 - Guilty: Failure to comply with SoS

Holy Shit!

Verdicts!

I get the not-guilty verdicts on impersonation, based on the summations. State was vague on the issue of how she could be guilty of impersonation when she herself didn't impersonate anyone. May also be an element of not knowing whether to believe Woods or Bishop beyond a reasonable doubt.

I knew the prosecution blew it on the identity theft. That is a shame that none of them know anything about Signal, they could have overcome the issues on that had they known about username vs profile name and the ability to control which one to display.

Oh well, at least they got her on the other things.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious
BREAKING BREAKING #TINAPETERSTRIAL VERDICT: Ms. Peters, please stand & face the jury:
Count 1 GUILTY
2 GUILTY
3 NOT GUILTY
4 GUILTY
5 NOT GUILTY
6 GUILTY
7 NOT GUILTY
8 GUILTY (Selected ALL proven)
9 GUILTY (Selected ALL)
10 GUILTY (Selected ALL)
Edminister asks for Jury Poll

Ok. This will equal what? Time?

Which of these are felonies? All of them?

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:20 pm I knew the prosecution blew it on the identity theft. That is a shame that none of them know anything about Signal, they could have overcome the issues on that had they known about username vs profile name and the ability to control which one to display.

Oh well, at least they got her on the other things.

But they got her on Criminal _Conspiracy_ to commit identity theft. That was the issue: the way the instructions were stated, or rather, the confusing way the instructions were stated, even I was thinking, "Wait a minute, even I don't think that covers her." But the yes on Conspriracy is satisfactory to me.

Judge Barrett treating his calendar to his famous glare.

Sentencing Oct 3 (I think).

much ado wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:27 pm Which of these are felonies? All of them?

Yes. -- ETA: Correction, some felonies, some misdemeanors.

They said she could be facing 20 years at the beginning of trial. So this is bad news for Tina, even with the 3 NGs.

Twelve Mesa County jurors found Tina Peters guilty of four felonies on Monday after a lengthy criminal trial, marking yet another conviction tied to post-2020 election conspiracy theories.

Peters was found guilty of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. She was also convicted of first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with an order from the Secretary of State, all misdemeanors.

The first four counts above are the felonies. Four felonies and three misdemeanors

He's got something weird going on with his hair. But he sounds like a radio DJ. I think he did a good job, and gave the defense more leeway than I would have (but IANAL).

What was the charge about impersonation? Who/what was she supposedly impersonating?

And the NG on ID theft surprised me; it seemed super obvious. I wonder how Wood is feeling about this; the jury thinks he was ok with it.

Sentencing in October!

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:35 pm He's got something weird going on with his hair. But he sounds like a radio DJ. I think he did a good job, and gave the defense more leeway than I would have (but IANAL).

What was the charge about impersonation? Who/what was she supposedly impersonating?

And the NG on ID theft surprised me; it seemed super obvious. I wonder how Wood is feeling about this; the jury thinks he was ok with it.

Sentencing in October!

I suspect the jury believed the Signal chat showed that Wood agreed to have his identity used. That was what that chat was all about. So, I wasn't at all surprised they found not guilty on those. I was actually surprised the conspiracy for ID theft ws a guilty, not sure how they got that one. I'm guessing their reasoning went something like this - conspiracy had to do with the plan to use someone's identity in order to get someone else in the room. But for the "actual" identity theft, they didn't believe Woods' id was "stolen" because they believed he was Trebuchet in the chat which means he agreed to have his id and keycode used. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:18 pm Count 1 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 2 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 3 - Not Guilty: Conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation
Count 4 - Guilty: Attempt to influence a public servant
Count 5 - Not Guilty: Criminal impersonation
Count 6 - Guilty: Conspiracy to to commit criminal impersonation
Count 7 - Not Guilty: Identity theft
Count 8 - Guilty: First degree official misconduct
Count 9 - Guilty: Violation of a duty
Count 10 - Guilty: Failure to comply with SoS

I don't get the split verdicts on #3, #5 and #6. Conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation - 1 guilty, 1 not. ??? And then NG on criminal impersonation.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:35 pm He's got something weird going on with his hair. But he sounds like a radio DJ. I think he did a good job, and gave the defense more leeway than I would have (but IANAL).

What was the charge about impersonation? Who/what was she supposedly impersonating?

And the NG on ID theft surprised me; it seemed super obvious. I wonder how Wood is feeling about this; the jury thinks he was ok with it.

Sentencing in October!

Your question contains the problem with the charges--it's awkwardly phrased. Those counts refer to Conan Hayes impersonating Woods (using his ID). There is circuitous language in the instructions that state that since the whole impersonation scheme was a conspiracy, she was guilty of anything anyone else in the conspiracy did. But it was convoluted, and the Prosecution did not, to my memory, attempt to sort it out in their closing.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:40 pm Your question contains the problem with the charges--it's awkwardly phrased. Those counts refer to Conan Hayes impersonating Woods (using his ID). There is circuitous language in the instructions that state that since the whole impersonation scheme was a conspiracy, she was guilty of anything anyone else in the conspiracy did. But it was convoluted, and the Prosecution did not, to my memory, attempt to sort it out in their closing.

I haven't been following this trial, but conspiracy generally is at least two people agreeing to commit a crime, and then someone taking a step towards actually completing it.

The key issue is the agreement. So even if they are incompetent criminal conspirators, or you didn't make an agreement with the actual doer, or the tactics changed downfield, you can still be on the hook for the original conspiracy.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:54 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:40 pm Your question contains the problem with the charges--it's awkwardly phrased. Those counts refer to Conan Hayes impersonating Woods (using his ID). There is circuitous language in the instructions that state that since the whole impersonation scheme was a conspiracy, she was guilty of anything anyone else in the conspiracy did. But it was convoluted, and the Prosecution did not, to my memory, attempt to sort it out in their closing.

I haven't been following this trial, but conspiracy generally is at least two people agreeing to commit a crime, and then someone taking a step towards actually completing it.

The key issue is the agreement. So even if they are incompetent criminal conspirators, or you didn't make an agreement with the actual doer, or the tactics changed downfield, you can still be on the hook for the original conspiracy.

I bet if they hadn't been in a hurry, they would have worked it out eventually and convicted on all counts. I'm guessing (since they had a question about what to do if there were a few counts they couldn't agree on) the ones who wanted guilty on all counts were okay with letting three go, so they could go home, rather than to try to wade through the instructions on those counts and get everyone on the same page.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 7:59 pm I bet if they hadn't been in a hurry, they would have worked it out eventually and convicted on all counts. I'm guessing (since they had a question about what to do if there were a few counts they couldn't agree on) the ones who wanted guilty on all counts were okay with letting three go, so they could go home, rather than to try to wade through the instructions on those counts and get everyone on the same page.

It seems like it. The verdicts' being possibly inconsistent likely will come up on appeal. But the argument, "Well, because the jury could have convicted on more but didn't means you have to vacate everything" doesn't really fly.

In Colorado does the jury determine the sentence like in Texas or does the judge do it?

According to the judge's instructions, Tina's defense for identity theft was that the intended victim consented to having his identity used. The judge did specify if the jury believed Wood agreed to having his identity used, this is a valid legal defense and they have to find not guilty. I just listened to the instructions over again. The prosecution had to prove that the identity was in fact used, and that Wood did not consent. That's it, they only had to prove those two things.

The jury found the prosecution did not prove that. I agree with the jury verdict on that, given the presence of a supposed chat session in which Wood appeared to have agreed. The prosecution did nothing to satisfy the jury that the chat wasn't real or that Trebuchet was not Wood. The only thing they offered was that it was not contained on one of the confiscated phones. The problem is that doesn't prove it didn't happen on 'some' phone. She encouraged everyone to get burner phones. And that fact was presented as evidence in the case. I am afraid the prosecution just blew it on those counts.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:06 pm According to the judge's instructions, Tina's defense for identity theft was that the intended victim consented to having his identity used. The judge did specify if the jury believed Wood agreed to having his identity used, this is a valid legal defense and they have to find not guilty.

I hope someone interviews Wood about that part of the verdict.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:12 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:06 pm According to the judge's instructions, Tina's defense for identity theft was that the intended victim consented to having his identity used. The judge did specify if the jury believed Wood agreed to having his identity used, this is a valid legal defense and they have to find not guilty.

I hope someone interviews Wood about that part of the verdict.

I do not believe Wood even KNEW about the details of the fact that someone could impersonate him on Signal by using his username as their profile name. Otherwise I think he would have tried to slip that in. At the very least once he was released if he knew about that, he could have told the prosecution hey, listen, here's how this works. Then the prosecution could have had their expert come back for rebuttal to the Signal chat evidence. But they didn't. Someone really needs to tell the prosecutor about how Signal works in case they need it if they want to charge Bishop. She hasn't been charged yet. But she was in on the impersonation stuff.

Volkonski wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:04 pm In Colorado does the jury determine the sentence like in Texas or does the judge do it?

Judge Barret told Tina that he would read the parole report to help him decide what her sentence would be, so I gather it's all on him.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:19 pm

Volkonski wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 8:04 pm In Colorado does the jury determine the sentence like in Texas or does the judge do it?

Judge Barret told Tina that he would read the parole report to help him decide what her sentence would be, so I gather it's all on him.

That's not going to be good for her.

https://www.westernslopenow.com/top-sto ... -of-court/

Friday morning an Eagle County judge, Chief Judge Dunkelman, appeared in courtroom 12 at the Mesa County Justice Center to preside over Tina Peters’s contempt hearing. The hearing stems from allegations Peters recorded former Deputy Clerk Belinda Knisley’s February hearing of last year and then lied to Mesa County Judge Matthew Barrett.

More than 30 people packed into the courtroom to see if Peters would be held in contempt of court for allegedly recording court proceedings and lying to a judge about her actions. District Attorney Dan Rubenstein led the prosecution. His first witness was a Paralegal with the DA’s Office Haley Gonzalez who testified to having seen tina peters holding her iPad in an unconventional way. Gonzalez said she saw the camera app open and in video mode. The prosecution backed that up with these two videos (you can see both in the video at the top of the page.) showing Peters touching the right side of the screen and angling it upwards—then the second video which shows her moving the iPad around, seemingly attempting to get a better angle.