Supreme Court Authorizes Dismissal of the Prosecution of Steve Bannon & Colorado Appeals Court Orders Resentencing for Tina Peters
A week of major legal reversals sees Steve Bannon’s contempt conviction dropped and a Colorado court rule that Tina Peters’ sentence improperly relied on protected speech.
This week, we saw excellent developments for those who dared challenge the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court will allow the government to dismiss Steve Bannon’s criminal case—the prosecution caused him to serve three months in a federal prison for contempt of Congress. And in Colorado, Tina Peters’ unjust nine-year sentence has been reversed by a Colorado court of appeals.
Supreme Court Approves Dismissal of Steve Bannon’s Criminal Case
On Monday, the Supreme Court finally put an end to the unjust prosecution of Steve Bannon.
After a jury trial in the District of Columbia, Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress (in violation of 2 U.S.C. 192) and sentenced to four months in prison. The charges stemmed from Bannon’s refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena related to the 2020 presidential election. Bannon, upon advice of counsel, asserted executive privilege and refused to comply with the subpoena. The Biden Administration vigorously prosecuted and imprisoned him.
Bannon appealed his conviction, arguing that the statute he did not “willfully” violate the statute because his lawyer advised him to not respond to the subpoena. He further argued that the trial court erred by not allowing him to present evidence that he relied on advice of counsel. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against him and upheld his conviction. Bannon then sought an en banc rehearing by the Appeals Court. That request was denied.
Bannon sought Supreme Court review, requesting it vacate the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and remand the case to the district court for the purpose of granting the government’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted that request. The Trump Administration, to its credit, supported Bannon’s request, stating it had requested dismissal in the district court and determined that dismissal was “in the interests of justice.”
Unfortunately, there is no where Bannon can go to get back the three months of his life he was forced to spend in prison.
Colorado Court: Tina Peters must be resentenced
Tina Peters, Gold Star mom, grandmother, and the former clerk of Mesa County, Colorado, was convicted by a jury of tampering with voting machines in an effort to prove fraud in the 2020 presidential election. In total, she was convicted of seven counts – three of which were felonies. The trial judge sentenced her to nine years.
At sentencing, the judge, who was clearly prejudiced against Peters, scolded her for her beliefs of election fraud:
“There are many things in my mind that are crystal clear about this case. You are no hero. You abused your position and you’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to [peddle] a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again. In your world, it’s all about you.”
He vilified her further—stating that her words were potentially worse than “violence”:
“So the damage that is caused and continue[s] to be caused is just as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis. And it’s particularly damaging when those words come from someone who holds a position of influence like you. Every effort to undermine the integrity of our elections and public trust in our institutions has been made by you. You’ve done it from that lectern the voting public provided you with . Everything you’ve done has been done to retain control influence [sic]. The damage is immeasurable. And every time it gets refuted, every time it’s shown to be false, just another [tale] is weaved.”
On appeal, Peters argued that the trial court violated her First Amendment rights by punishing her protected speech regarding allegations of election fraud. The court of appeals agreed in a 3-0 opinion.
Important to the appellate court’s holding was that the First Amendment “generally prohibits punishing someone for their protected speech.” While a Colorado court may consider a variety of factors when sentencing, “the trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing.” After all, Peters was not convicted for her beliefs and “the trial court should not have considered those beliefs relevant when imposing sentence.” For those reasons, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court made an obvious and substantial error “by imposing sentence at least partially based on Peters’s protected speech.”
The case has been remanded back to the trial court for resentencing. We hope Peters seeks reassignment of the case to another judge once it is back in the trial court. We also hope she will be released on bond immediately and sentenced to time-served.