The political world took note recently that Tina Peters, an election denier and former county clerk in Mesa County, was sentenced to nine years combined in jail and prison. Even as she was taken into custody, politicos across the country were noting the significance of her sentence.
The man issuing the sentence, Judge Matthew Barrett, deserves more than a moment of praise for his performance throughout the trial. Barrett has been methodical, fair-minded and a model of judicial temperament.
As high-profile political cases have captivated the country — most notably the multiple proceedings against former President Donald Trump and his co-conspirators as well as the hundreds of criminal cases against January 6th defendants — judges often find themselves in an unusual spotlight. Every decision comes with added outside analysis. Every order is reviewed and picked apart.
Barrett saw out the trial with aplomb.
Peters originally faced indictment in March 2022. In the interim she repeatedly clashed with her own attorneys and requested delays to trial. Barrett could have lost his patience or, alternatively, let Peters continue her abuse of the process. Instead, he allowed a final continuance while making it clear to Peters that it would be her last — she would face a jury this year and it would be delayed no more.
During those months, Barrett heard multiple pleading disputes prior to trial beginning. This is an often underreported part of any case. Critical issues get hashed out and the evidence that can be introduced is determined. Judges need to make thorough, well-reasoned rulings to avoid being overruled on appeal.
In Peters’ case, that meant making determinations on multiple conspiracy theories she wanted to present. For example, Peters wanted to go in-depth about Conan Hayes, the former professional surfer and Mike Lindell associate, who worked with Peters to impersonate another man to gain access to the election equipment. Peters wanted to introduce background information about Hayes and her contention that he had been a government informant in other cases.
After considering arguments from both sides, Barrett eventually ruled that evidence would not be admissible. It was not relevant to the case at bar and would likely lead to confusion for the jury.
Throughout the trial, Peters and her team repeatedly tried to present that evidence. Each time drew an objection and Barrett listened attentively, often calling the attorneys to his bench for private conversations. Barrett could have been far more demonstrative but instead chose to handle the matter in a dignified manner to preserve a fair environment for the jury.
That is harder said than done. Even judges can lose their temper when a party repeatedly skirts their orders.
Barrett maintained decorum in his courtroom for the entire extended trial. That went for demonstrative reactions from either party and outbursts from the audience. A few times he even admonished those who deigned to wear hats into his court.
When he read through the jury’s verdict, Barrett showed no motion one way or the other. He read off each count clearly and slowly, whether the jury found Peters guilty or not.
It was not until sentencing that Barrett made his view of Peters’ actions known.
And at that point, Barrett unleashed. But even then, he stayed within the guidelines of judicial decorum.
Barrett went through the multiple options available to him for sentencing of Peters. He noted the statute — and that only the prosecution had tailored its argument to those factors — and methodically worked through multiple factors and how they played into his decision.
In the end, Barrett used Peters’ own words and actions, not his beliefs, to dictate the sentence. Between the jury verdict and sentencing, Peters repeatedly went on podcasts and radio shows proclaiming she had done nothing wrong and had not been allowed to present all the evidence she wished.
Peters followed that display with a nearly hour-long presentation at sentencing — the last of the morning and followed by multiple delays caused by her defense team’s failure to understand the order of testimony — when Peters again attempted to tell the story she had wanted to tell. Barrett sat through the presentation stone-faced but for a brief exchange when he instructed her to cease putting on additional arguments and focus on the relevant sentencing issues.
While it may have made other election deniers nod their heads, Peters’ display did her no favors at sentencing. Barrett seized on moments like that to declare she was a “charlatan” who sought “fame” and the adoration of others at the cost of the county and our democracy. Barrett said he was, “convinced you would do it all over again” and compared her privilege unfavorably to the other defendants who had been in his court earlier that day.
In the end, Barrett stoically read out his sentence for each individual count and the concurrent sentence. He remanded Peters to custody and eventually cleared his court.
Later that day, Barrett likely got back to the other matters on his crowded docket. Barrett, like every good judge, understands that every defendant deserves their day in court and Peters already had hers.
Mario Nicolais is an attorney and columnist who writes on law enforcement, the legal system, health care and public policy. Follow him on BlueSky: @MarioNicolais.bsky.social.
The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.
Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.