Tina Peters Hearing Results - Bond Results
What Was The Outcome In Colorado?
Yesterday, July 22, Denver Federal District Court was considering Tina Peters’s habeas corpus petition and bond request—is Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak, who recently denied her motion to participate remotely from jail. This was a federal court proceeding related to her habeas petition and is not before Judge Matthew Barrett, who handled the state-level criminal trial and sentencing back in October 2024.
The court case was handled by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. For background, the Judge Earned his bachelor’s degree from John Carroll University, then graduated from University of Michigan Law School and he clerked for Judge Catherine C. Black of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Judge Varholak Spent two years as a public defender at the Defender Association of Philadelphia, then spent a year in private practice in Washington, D.C. and then relocated to Denver in 2003, where he served over a decade as a Federal Public Defender and later worked in private practice, handling civil litigation and bankruptcy cases.
Varholak Appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado on October 1, 2016; his current term runs through 2038 Serves as Chief Magistrate Judge, with chambers in Denver’s Alfred A. Arraj Courthouse.
In short: Tina Peters is presenting a federal habeas corpus challenge today, seeking release on bond while her state‑court conviction is under appeal. Specifically, her attorneys argue:
Her health has deteriorated significantly during incarceration—raising concerns that justify her release.
She contends her liberty interests are at stake and wants to attend the hearing in person, to meaningfully participate.
Additionally, Peters is asserting new legal grounds tied to federal constitutional protections, including:
First Amendment concerns—claiming her speech rights were restricted by the state judge through the denial of bond.
Federal duties or immunity—arguing that she acted to preserve election records under federal law, which she says should shield her from continued incarceration.
However, Magistrate Judge Varholak has already signaled that some of these claims—particularly the constitutional and immunity-based ones—may not have been fully exhausted through the state court process, creating what's known as a “mixed petition” that the federal court may not yet be ready to adjudicate.
IN REVIEW:
What she’s seeking: Release on bond during appeal.
Core arguments: Health risks, liberty interests, constitutional and federal-duty assertions.
Challenges ahead: Some legal claims might be procedurally premature in federal court.
HABEAS CORPUS IS THE QUESTION
Habeas corpus is a legal writ (or court order) used to challenge the legality of a person's imprisonment or detention by the government. Purpose: To prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.
Filed by: The detained person or someone acting on their behalf.
Burden on the state: The government must show lawful cause for the detention.
Where it applies: State or federal court, including when challenging unconstitutional detainment or rights violations.
Her legal team is used a federal habeas corpus petition to challenge her continued detention during appeal, claiming constitutional violations, deteriorating health, and improper denial of bond.
BTW, yes, courts have granted release on bond pending appeal during habeas corpus proceedings, though it's relatively rare and only in exceptional circumstances:
Noyd v. Bond (1969)
Major Edward Noyd, convicted in a court-martial, challenged his confinement via habeas corpus. During the process, Justice Douglas ordered him placed in “non‑incarcerated status” pending full review—effectively granting bond until the Supreme Court ruled
A Missouri appellate court issuing a habeas writ recognized that for an appeal bond to apply, a valid appeal must be pending—underscoring the procedural prerequisites
Ancona (District Court, 2005)
In a Second Circuit precedent, Mr. Ancona sought release on bail pending federal habeas review. The court held that bail may be granted if the petition raises substantial claims and extraordinary circumstances, though it noted this remains a demanding standard
For Tina to have been granted such (which may still come) the criteria would be to have legal issues strong enough to potentially merit relief, with or including e.g. serious health risks, irreparable harm, excessive delay (which she seems to have) - but dismissal of habeas petition or its appeal must be before a bond is considered.
In Tina Peter’s case, she’s requesting bond before federal habeas relief has been granted meaning her challenge must clear the higher bar of substantial constitutional issues and urgent personal circumstances (e.g. health) to succeed.
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE IN COURT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
Colorado’s Attorney General’s Office was represented today by Chief Deputy Attorney General Natalie Hanlon Leh, who argued emphatically before Magistrate Judge Varholak that the Justice Department’s statement supporting Tina Peters’ bond request should be dismissed or struck. Leh maintained there's no evidence of political motive behind the prosecution and emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of Colorado's judicial system. She countered the DOJ’s filing, which suggested the state’s case may have been politically driven, asserting instead that Peters was indicted and convicted by fellow citizens and that no credible evidence supports a politically motivated prosecution.
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak expressed that the “Exhaustive Doctrine” most likely was not met.
The exhaustion doctrine is a fundamental principle in both federal habeas corpus law and administrative law. It requires that a person must first use all available remedies within the original system (state courts or an agency) before seeking relief from a higher or external authority like a federal court.
THIS IS THE TRUE CATCH IN PLAY
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1):
Federal courts cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus unless:The petitioner has exhausted all state remedies, or
The state’s process is ineffective or unavailable.
Originates from the Supreme Court ruling in Ex parte Royall (1886) and reinforced in Rose v. Lundy (1982).
The law requires that this be followed and early on it seemed to be convoluted with what is called a “Mixed Petition” (all the claims Tina’s Counsel(s) had packed into the pleading. If this really was the case (which the Judge advise Tina’s counsel against, then with a “mixed petition” some claims exhausted, some not), the federal court may:
Dismiss the petition entirely,
Require the petitioner to amend it to include only exhausted claims,
Or stay the case to allow exhaustion.
Double no-win for Tina so let’s hope this gets cleaned up in the next filing.
In her case, the exhaustion doctrine is key:
She's asking a federal court to grant release and review her constitutional claims.
The state argues she hasn’t yet exhausted those claims in Colorado’s highest court, meaning the federal court might lack jurisdiction to grant relief at this stage.
This all ended being kicked down the road 4 weeks (roughly) and the Judge needing to do a minutes order. A minutes order (or minute order) is a brief, written record of a court’s ruling or proceedings, entered by the court clerk “in the minutes” of the case and the official log of courtroom activity.
I listened online. We hear about murderers, drug dealers, even an illegal who allegedly decapitated a woman who were released on bond & here you have a 70 yo woman in gen pop with health issues & the fricken judge finds reasons to delay the proceeding. Didn't her atty anticipate this? Definitely need to keep praying for Tina.
I find it outrageous that in the United States we have a woman who was jailed as a result of a violation of procedures that she utilized that uncovered proof of electoral cheating. She was able to demonstrate that her claims of fraud were true but the attention was directed toward the method that was used to obtain the proof and not on what was proven. Mr. Pulitzer, you yourself proved that the election systems can be hacked during a city council meeting years ago using a cell phone and yet nothing was done about that either, that I know of. I am hoping and praying that Ms. Peters gets vindicated somehow and the conviction is vacated soon.