ListNook

eskimospy212 Apr 2, 2026 +11

Kudos to the one headline describing this correctly.

11

Silent-Resort-3076 Apr 2, 2026 +10

And, I can't wait for the final outcome because: >It sent the case back for a new sentencing **but rejected Peters’ request to assign it to a different judge.** Edited to add: I'm so happy about what I shared above, anyway. AND, because of the recent scuffle she had with another inmate ("Tina Peters found guilty of unauthorized absence during prison scuffle") I would just LOVE, LOVE if she got a longer sentence!!😋

10

NotOfferedForHearsay Apr 2, 2026 +4

The media being absolutely incapable of understanding court briefings is a major crisis of our time. Any media organization that wants to be considered remotely credible should have a number of attorneys on staff for the vast number of different areas of law, and should compensate them in line with market for the degree so they attract talent who knows what they’re doing. Having one “legal analyst” you’re offering 50k to is going to result in absolute bottom of the barrel legal analysis.

4

sneeje00 Apr 3, 2026 +1

Agreed, but what I'm also hearing is that consideration of remorse, which is rampant in sentencing, is unlawful.

1

Silent-Resort-3076 Apr 2, 2026 +4

Snippet: * The appeals court said that Peters’ offense wasn’t “her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.” The appeals court explained that “just as her purported beliefs underlying her motive for her actions were not relevant to her defense, the trial court should not have considered those beliefs relevant when imposing sentence.” * The appeals court conceded that many of the trial judge’s statements were completely appropriate, including when it came to the judge’s view that Peters was motivated by self-promotion and self-interest. * It sent the case back for a new sentencing **but rejected Peters’ request to assign it to a different judge.**

4

Ok-Lets-Talk-It-Out Apr 2, 2026 +4

Probably didn't see the issue with the original sentencing. Remorse for one's actions often can lead to softer sentencing. If someone continues to lie, push contract theories, and shows zero remorse at all, that most certainly should be reflected in sentencing.

4

Silent-Resort-3076 Apr 2, 2026 +9

Also, since the original judge WILL be re-sentencing her, I hope he takes into consideration her recent scuffle she had with another inmate ("Tina Peters found guilty of unauthorized absence during prison scuffle") I would just LOVE, LOVE if she got a **longer** sentence!!😋

9

Thrown_Account_ Apr 2, 2026

That would get it appealed and overruled. The judge has to apply the sentence for the crime found guilty not other possible crimes. Courts tend to have very strict guidelines on sentences that can be granted.

0

Silent-Resort-3076 Apr 2, 2026 +2

I'm sure you are right, but a girl can dream, right? However, me being me, I had to look for myself, and not sure if THIS is the same kind of resentencing, but: >Whether granted by appeal or cooperation, resentencing involves a judge considering [many of the same factors](https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/factors-considered-in-determining-sentences.html) when a person was originally sentenced, **plus whatever has happened since then**. Convicts who have been model inmates and who have substantially cooperated with prosecutors may be given a more lenient sentence. Judges must also abide with whatever instruction an appellate court may have given in ordering the defendant to be resentenced. [https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/criminal-resentencing-how-does-it-work/#:\~:text=At%20the%20Resentencing%20Hearing,Related%20Resources:](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/criminal-resentencing-how-does-it-work/#:~:text=At%20the%20Resentencing%20Hearing,Related%20Resources:)

2

phosdick Apr 2, 2026 +3

I'd propose 8 years and 364 days as the new sentence. She did conspire to taint the votes that she swore to protect.

3

FigeaterApocalypse Apr 2, 2026 +3

I've never heard "and I'd do it again" be considered free speech. Rules for thee, not for me on display once again. Why do Republicans hate the law?

3

returnofthecursed Apr 2, 2026 +2

Of course the wrinkly old white MAGA grandma gets special treatment. There are countless cases of sentencing injustice that should be heard before this traitorous unrepentant snake gets clemency. But that's how corruption works, and we clearly have a corrupt system.

2

Silent-Resort-3076 Apr 2, 2026 +5

P.S. >It sent the case back for a new sentencing **but rejected Peters’ request to assign it to a different judge.** Just an FYI, the original judge (that she's stuck with in her re-sentencing) was and is very strict! So because of the recent scuffle she had with another inmate ("Tina Peters found guilty of unauthorized absence during prison scuffle") She "**could**" get a longer sentence!!

5

KennyTidwell Apr 2, 2026 -18

So basically speaking your mind can still get you in trouble

-18

PrideofPicktown Apr 2, 2026 +11

Spreading patently false allegations about the election from one’s official capacity is not the same thing as “speaking (one’s) mind” and is thus not protected as free speech.

11

BasicPhysiology Apr 2, 2026 +2

She wasn’t convicted for spreading false allegations about the election, she was convicted of unlawfully accessing voting equipment. 4 felonies, none of which were related to free speech.

2

returnofthecursed Apr 2, 2026 +1

She broke the law because of those false allegations, that was the motive for her crime. If someone illegally attacked you because you were wearing a MAGA hat, and at their sentencing they said "I think I was justified, this trial is a sham", would you be cool with the judge ignoring that in sentencing?

1

BasicPhysiology Apr 2, 2026 +1

Not trying to be rude but I don’t understand your comparison. The motive was election fraud conspiracy, not the right to spread false information under the first amendment. The crime was illegal access to voting hardware. This article is saying that her continued assertion that the election was fraudulent is protected speech and can’t be used to influence sentencing. Your example doesn’t really align with any part of the story.

1

PrideofPicktown Apr 2, 2026

She committed the crime in furtherance of her “belief” that the election was “stolen.”

0

BasicPhysiology Apr 2, 2026

Ok. . . But her “belief” that the election was “stolen” in terms of protected first amendment speech was not a factor in her conviction.

0

john_117 Apr 3, 2026 +1

LOL reading comprehension is disappearing day by day

1

Court orders resentencing for Tina Peters but says Trump can’t pardon her state crimes: Colorado’s appeals court said her lengthy sentence “was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech.”

💬 Send a Message

21 Comments