The Appellate Temporary for Tina Peters has been filed.
On Saturday, the Appellate Temporary for Tina Peters was filed.
Treniss Evans shared the information on social media.
Evans thanked the nice Patrick Byrne and Juan O’Savin for his or her unbelievable generosity and tireless dedication.
He additionally thanks the next for his or her work in placing it collectively – Peter Ticktin, John Case, Stefanie Lambert, Jon Moseley, Pat McSweeney, Bob Cynkar, and Linda Good.
BREAKING!!! Tina Peters Appellate Temporary Filed!
Thanks, Peter Ticktin, John Case, Stefanie Lambert, Jon Moseley, Pat McSweeney, Bob Cynkar, and Linda Good. The staff at AMERICAN RIGHTS ALLIANCE delivered, and particular because of the nice Patrick Byrne and Juan O’Savin for his or her unbelievable generosity and tireless dedication!
That is gold, and we hope to see fast motion on the standing for Tina Peters. I’m honored to work with so many wonderful and gifted folks!
BREAKING!!! Tina Peters Appellate Temporary Filed!
Thanks, Peter Ticktin, John Case, Stefanie Lambert, Jon Moseley, Pat McSweeney, Bob Cynkar, and Linda Good. The staff at AMERICAN RIGHTS ALLIANCE delivered, and particular because of the nice Patrick Byrne and Juan O’Savin for his or her…— Treniss J. Evans III (@CondemnedUSA) May 31, 2025
Listed below are the problems on enchantment addressed within the doc:
ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. Whether or not the district court docket erred as a matter of legislation in denying Ms. Peters’ movement to dismiss primarily based on her declare of immunity pursuant to the Supremacy Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the U.S. Structure.
2. Whether or not the proof was inadequate.
3. Whether or not the court docket denied Ms. Peters due course of.
a. Whether or not the district court docket disadvantaged Ms. Peters of a significant alternative to current a whole protection.
b. Whether or not the court docket erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the statutory protection of execution of a public obligation, and the federal constitutional protection of Supremacy Clause immunity.
c. Whether or not Ms. Peters had satisfactory discover of the fees.
d. Whether or not the prosecution misled the jury by stating repeatedly that Ms. Peters’ conduct precipitated a “safety breach.”
e. Whether or not the court docket erred by refusing to carry a listening to to analyze allegations of improper juror conduct.
f. Whether or not the prosecutor’s false assertion in rebuttal closing requires a brand new trial.4. Whether or not the district court docket’s sentence violated the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and whether or not the sentence was primarily based partly on a contempt conviction that was later vacated by the Court docket of Appeals.
See the Temporary under:
Tina Peters FINAL Appellate Brief by Joe Ho on Scribd
