January 21, 2026 – Textbook due-process collapse in Colorado v. Tina Peters: The state admits she was never charged with the felony, the jury was never instructed on the felony

In Email/Dossier/Govt Corruption Investigations, Featured Timeline Entries by Katie Weddington

This is textbook due-process collapse. In Colorado v. Tina Peters, the state admits she was never charged with the felony, the jury was never instructed on the felony, and the jury actually convicted her of a misdemeanor—yet prosecutors insist courts can still enter a felony conviction because the evidence might have supported it.

That’s not law. That’s convict-first, justify-later. The Colorado Court of Appeals is rightly horrified because this would erase charging requirements, jury instructions, and verdicts entirely. If the state can swap crimes after trial, jury trials are meaningless.

Whatever you think of Tina Peters, this principle matters to everyone. Due process means you’re convicted only of crimes charged and instructed, not crimes prosecutors wish they’d charged. When the state argues otherwise, it’s not enforcing law—it’s dismantling it.

Dan Rubinstein heads the 21st Judicial District Attorney’s Office tasked with prosecuting former Mesa County Clerk.

Tina Peters’ appeal remains pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals as of January 22, 2026. Oral arguments were heard on January 14, 2026, before a three-judge panel.

The judges appeared highly skeptical of Peters’ arguments for full reversal of her convictions (e.g., federal immunity under the Supremacy Clause, insufficient evidence, due process violations). However, they expressed serious concerns about her 9-year sentence, including a potential procedural error that may have improperly elevated one count from misdemeanor to felony (adding ~15 months) and whether the trial judge improperly considered her post-conviction election beliefs and statements, potentially violating First Amendment protections.

The panel questioned the prosecution closely on sentencing fairness for a non-violent first-time offender. If the appeal partially succeeds on sentencing issues, the case would likely be remanded to the original trial court in Mesa County’s 21st Judicial District for resentencing—most probably before the same judge, Matthew Barrett, who imposed the original sentence (though Peters’ attorney requested a different judge). No ruling has been issued yet; a written decision is expected in the coming months.

I am skeptical because all 3 judges were appointed by liberal ex-governor Hickenlooper.