One juror told the investigator he might have voted differently if he had heard testimony that Clerk Peters had a duty to preserve election records. A second juror stated that during the first week of trial, the phone lines at her business were cut, it cost her $4,000, and she wondered throughout the trial “if I was being targeted.”
If one of the juror's stated that he may have voted differently if he had KNOWN that Tina Peters had a duty to preserve records as the Mesa County Clerk, and Judge Barrett denied the jury the right to hear that fact and prevented Tina's defense from arguing that point during her trial, how can it be that her convictions stand unquestioned?