Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
The prosecution rested their case Thursday. The court heard a Rule 29 Motion for Directed Acquittal, outside the presence of the jury. CFP updates will return tomorrow morning, with a summary of the remainder of Thursday's proceedings.
The Trial of Tina Peters will resume Friday morning. Colorado Free Press is back in the courtroom with live updates, captured below. Peters maintains that her actions were part of her official duties, while the state and local authorities claim she broke the law.
Note: CFP did not cover jury selection and opening statements on July 31.
3:45PM: Court returns and is conducting business outside the presence of the jury. The trial remains live at the link above. CFP team will return to live updates in the morning, with a summary of the remainder of Thursday's proceedings.
3:25PM: Prosecution Rests. Defense is making a motion for Directed Acquittal. Court will resume in 10 minutes.
2:40PM: Discussion about image meta data. Testifying to how he pulled meta data.
2:35PM: Testimony that Wood had "use immunity" and remained a target of the investigation even after he cooperated.
2:34PM: Judge to Jury: Do not draw any negative inferences about the Defendant re: the presence of a federal investigation. Questions resume. Asking now about Wood's immunity
2:30PM: When the technicians were done, what did they give you? Objection! Defense asks to approach. Sidebar
2:29PM: November 2021: Participated in a FEDERAL search warrant on four homes (Peters, Knisley, Brown, Wood). Cannon was present at Sandra Brown's house. Took the electronic devices. Computers, phones, smart watches, etc. Looking for evidence, communications, etc.
2:26PM: After August 16, 2021, what steps did you take? Numerous discussions, interviews, search warrants.
2:25PM: What were the key investigative steps you took? Defense asks to approach. Sidebar.
2:24PM: Google earth mapping training. Seizing and analyzing cell records more times than he can count. Defense has no further objection.
2:23PM: Prosecution offers Cannon, the investigator, as an expert witness about his own investigation. Hartman does not object re: complex investigations. Objects on an expert in digital mapping. Not credentialed. Needs better foundation. Judge asks for further foundation.
2:21PM: Cannon wrote software for the Sheriff's Office. His dad taught him how to do it. Objection! Relevance! "Are you laying a foundation?" Yes. "Overruled."
2:19PM: When were you promoted to Chief Investigator? Two years ago. Objection! Relevance! Overruled. He was given "Investigator of the Year" in Colorado.
2:18PM: Prosecution brings Mesa Investigator back to the stand. Cannon testified on August 1. He is now recounting his professional experience.
2:17PM: Judge says to the jury: "Sometimes your questions can't be asked." (1) Are the passwords in the packet the same ones that were active in 2021?" "Yes, they were from 2020 and active in 2021, that is how the rule making cycle works." (2) Were they changed since 2021?" The feed cut out for the answer, but the answer is yes.
2:11PM: "Leaked passwords" were the most serious security breach that the witness has ever seen. Prosecution is done, questions from the jury.
2:09PM: In your expert opinion, does SecState have authority? Yes.
2:07PM: Defense has no further questions. Redirect.
2:05PM: Jury returns.
2:00PM: Court confirms that Peters did NOT violate the law by turning off the cameras. “The rules have nothing to do with this case.” Um, so why did you allow this “rule expert”???
1:56PM: Jury not in yet. Judge and Hartman are arguing about whether or not Hartman is allowed to explore all these doors the prosecution opened.
Court taking their lunch break. Returning at 1:50PM. Thornton is still on the stand.
12:51PM: Basically, this witness has testified that Clerk Peters had the statutory authority in 2021 and was in violation of Jena stuff that wasn't even explicitly written in the rules. The Court allowed this and has tried to reign it in, but the prosecution opened the door.
12:46PM: Shapiro is objecting to every question. This is likely because the SecState authority in 2021 vs. the Clerk authority in 2021 falls very much in the realm of REASONABLE DOUBT.
12:42PM: If the passwords were not longer active, would you consider them "Confidential"? "Yes" "Why?" "Because we don't hand them out willy nilly." Inactive, past passwords.
12:30PM: Two additional sidebars about rules. Shapiro keeps objecting on relevance, that the contradictions in Thornton's testimony about the rules is irrelevant.
12:15PM: Defense Counsel is working to show how, despite what the "expert" witness claims, the allegations about statutory authorities in 2021 was not black and white matter. Counsel approach for another sidebar. There have been many sidebars during this witness's testimony.
11:51AM: Objection overruled. Questions continue.
11:45AM: More questions about the authorities in 2021. Shapiro continues to object to his witness being impeached. Counsel is in sidebar now.
11:38AM: Reading from the rules, "So the clerk is the authority over the voting machines?" "That is correct." Objection! Exhibit hasn't been admitted. "Okay I'll admit it." Shapiro seems very frustrated that his "expert" testimony is falling apart.
11:36AM: Detailed back and forth about duties, powers, statutes, and rules.
11:32AM: "Are you familiar with concept of ex post facto?" "Limited, but not in detail." "Well, you are our legal expert today..." Objection! Sustained on relevance.
11:25AM: Witness confirms that there is no timeline on SecState rule "must comply with right to inspect." "She didn't comply with your timeline," Defense Counsel says. Not the rule, the timeline. And there is no timeline requirement in the rule.
11:24AM: Back and forth about the statutes in 2021. Thornton says, "But this is 2020." 2020 is what governed the conduct in 2021.
11:13AM: Court returns, jury enters. Hartman begins cross-examination of Thornton.
Court taking morning break.
11:00AM: Prosecution is done with Thornton. Court taking a break before cross examination.
10:58AM: Thornton testifies that Clerks have no investigative powers or oversight.
10:55AM: Caleb Thornton continues to testify about Secretary Jena Griswold's unchecked power and basically confirms that Clerks have no business being elected officials because the Secretary holds all the power.
10:29AM: Witness testifies that being a fake person on Telegram didn't harm anyone or subject them to criminal prosecution. He notably did not mention if his unconstitutional action led to the office interacting with social platforms to impact accounts. Elon Musk needs to look into the Colorado Twitter Files.
10:23AM: Thorton created a Telegram profile to track "election deniers," a fake name called "Jerry House." This is an expert witness for the prosecution.
10:18AM: Prosecution offers the witness as an expert, defense request voir dire. "Have you been qualified as an expert before?" "I have not." "Have you published papers, etc.?" "I write papers for secstate." "But you have not been an expert before?" "No." Defense objects. Court finds him qualified. Wow (That last word is commentary.)
10:15AM: Rules are not contained in the statutes. The rules are on Jena Griswold's website. This is not CFP commentary. This is the witness testimony.
10:13AM: Prosecution is attempting to establish Thornton as an expert on rulemaking. He claims to be "a career public servant" rather than a political operative.
10:11AM: Caleb Thornton, Colorado Secretary of State Office attorney, is on the stand talking about the rulemaking process.
10:05AM: Court asks for the jury to be called in.
10:03AM: In this case, the Defendant has questioned the Secretary of State's authority and stated that the SecState did not have authority. This is a novel issue. The crimes are a dispute between two elected officials. Testimony will likely create confusion. Nature of the opinions offered go far beyond. The Court will allow some exploration about these general rules and issues, but will not allow the testimony to go into authorities. Witness may opine on the authorities and the statutory schemes. He may discuss in a limited fashion, the rulemaking process. May discuss the law. To be clear, he may not opine about the behavior's conduct relative to any crime or compliance. Court wants to know how these various rules and statutes interplay between the facts in this case.
10:00AM: The issue before the Court is that the Prosecution wants to call Caleb Thornton, an attorney from the Secretary of State's Office, as an expert witness to discuss rule making and statutory authorities. The Court is recounting the request. The expert, according to the report, would be testifying to his expert opinion on the statutory authorities in 2021. The Court has the gatekeeping role. Cites Rule 702 re: evidence that will assist the trier of fact. "I must determine that the evidence offered is not only reliable but also relevant." "I consider a host of factors." The case law presented by the prosecution was a complex securities case. Supreme Court found the testimony admissible because of the novel parameters of the case, and did not go into guilt or innocence. Other cases, trier of fact found the type of testimony unnecessary or unduly prejudicial.
9:54AM: The Court is asking the Prosecution about what they want to add to their request for Caleb Thornton to be an expert witness on the matter of rule v. law. The judge gives three minutes to each side.
9:50AM: The Cameras are on, the parties are present, and we are beginning the day with a sidebar!
Live updates will resume when court returns. Expected 9:45AM
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
