The trial against former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters wrapped up its first week on Friday, featuring testimony by witnesses for the prosecution including IT professional Gerald Wood.
Peters, who is charged with crimes related to making a copy of an election database because she was concerned that not keeping the files for two years would violate the law, hired Wood to help her with technical issues. However, Wood repeatedly stated he couldn’t remember much when her attorney cross-examined him.
Wood, who ended up not performing any work for Peters, spent much of his time on the witness stand distancing himself from the appearance that he was involved with Peters bringing in an outside IT expert to observe an upgrade of the Dominion voting machine software since prosecutors alleged that a leak of computer bios passwords took place after IT expert Conan Hayes allegedly used Wood’s key card to enter the area where the upgrade was performed.
Peters’ attorney, John Case, confronted Wood about his claims of little involvement with the upgrade, which is also known as imaging. “Did you brag to Joe Oltmann that Conan Hayes used your key card to do the imaging?” Case asked. Wood responded, “No.”
Oltmann is a podcaster who focuses heavily on election integrity and reportedly will be called as a witness for the defense. Case said the alleged bragging took place when Oltmann was on the same plane as Wood, returning from a symposium on election fraud put on by Mike Lindell in South Dakota in August 2021.
Case tried to show with his cross-examination that Wood feared being prosecuted himself, so Wood testified to a grand jury against Peters after obtaining an immunity agreement with prosecutors. “Without this immunity agreement, you would have refused to answer questions before the grand jury based on your Fifth Amendment right?” he asked. Woods responded, “True.”
When Case asked Wood about a Signal group that Wood appeared to be in along with other IT professionals and Peters, Wood acted like he did not remember, even though Case showed Woods that his phone number was part of the group chat, connected to Wood’s Signal username “Trebuchet.”
Wood explained to Case that he used the nickname since he liked what it represented. “It is a medieval siege engine for throwing rocks to a great distance,” he said.
Case asked him, “Were you part of a group known as the Tech Team? Do you recall that?” Wood responded, “I don’t recall any of this.”
Case then asked, “Do you know of anybody other than yourself who uses the name Trebuchet?” Wood responded, “I know other people who like the idea and can build them. I don’t know anyone else, no, but I do know that I have an email address that uses that name, and I had to add to put numbers on the end because other people were using it. There’s quite a lot of Trebuchets out there as IDs.”
Case continued, “Well, do you know anyone who went to the symposium that uses the name Trebuchet?” Wood responded, “As far as I know, no one else, but I know, I don’t know everyone at the symposium, right?”
Case asked, “Do you know anyone else in the Grand Junction area that uses the name Trebuchet?” Wood responded, “I don’t have any knowledge of anyone else.”
When Case again asked him if he was part of the Signal chat group called Tech Team, Wood responded, “I don’t know, I don’t have any recollection of that.”
Case pressed, “You acknowledged that you were a member of the team chat group on Signal, true?” Wood responded, alluding to an earlier admission that his phone number was the one Case showed him that was affiliated with the chat group, “I thought I acknowledged that it appears that way from what I’m seeing, yes.”
Case said Sheronna Bishop added him to the group and said she introduced him, saying, “Tina, this is our guy.”
Wood responded, “I don’t know, I don’t have any recollection of that.”
Case continued, “And you have no recollection of participating in such a group?” Wood responded, “I don’t.”
Case reminded Wood that he’d admitted it was his phone number. “Once again, was that your phone number?” he asked.
Shapiro interrupted, “Lack of foundation, irrelevant, has not been authenticated, and he’s testifying. It’s been asked and answered.”
Case asked him, “Did you become a member of a chat group with the people that were going to the symposium?” Wood responded, “Quite possibly.”
Case followed up, “And when you walked into the symposium, did you, did you send a text on that chat thread to find the people who were coming from Grand Junction?” Wood responded, “Maybe?”
Case asked him, “Did you say, ‘Where’s my Peeps?’” Wood responded, “It’s possible.”
Next, Case questioned Wood about Hayes. “At the symposium, you spent time backstage. Is that right?” he asked. Wood responded, “Yes.”
Case asked, “You were with the cyber group, true?” Wood responded, “The cyber group, yes, the cyber experts, yes.”
Case said, “Yeah, the cyber experts and Conan Hayes with the cyber experts. The cyber mercenary wasn’t with the cyber experts?” Wood responded, “Not to my knowledge.”
In 2022, Peters accused Wood of perjuring himself in his testimony to the grand jury about her. An article in The Durango Herald that year stated that some people in the social circle of Wood and his wife “turned against the couple, calling Gerald ‘Judas Jerry.’”
One of Peters’ attorneys attempted to ask Mesa County Director of Elections Brandi Bantz, another prosecution witness, about requests to audit the 2020 election, but the judge would not allow it. The attorney said, “Now, is it true that in 2021 some constituents like Commissioner Cody Davis actually asked the clerk’s office to do an audit of the 2020 election?”
Brandi Bantz testifying at Tina Peter’s trail.
Shapiro interrupted, “Objection: hearsay, relevance.” The judge responded, “It’s not hearsay, but it isn’t relevant. So sustained on that ground.”
Bantz admitted during questioning that the contract to use Dominion Voting Systems was signed by Mesa County and Dominion, not the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.
Mesa County IT Operations Manager Lhana Jordan, another prosecution witness, said she didn’t know whether it was illegal for Peters to turn off surveillance cameras. However, Peters’ attorney got her to admit that she did not know the law in this area and relied on elected officials to know the law for this type of conduct. She admitted that if she thought she was doing something illegal, she would not have turned the cameras off after Peters made the request.
Jordan also admitted during cross-examination that Peters asked her if she could supply four tech employees from varying political parties to observe the installation of the Dominion software upgrade, known as the “Trusted Build.” Jordan said she refused since she was short-staffed and her employees had no expertise in that area.
Lhana Jordan testifying at Tina Peter’s trial.
During the trial, the judge admitted how subjective judicial discretion is when admitting exhibits into evidence. Regarding an exhibit that was being offered, he said, “Identification is a work of art. Given a low bar for authentication, I will admit it.” During the 2020 election challenges, judges often refused to accept evidence. The media frequently published articles stating that no evidence had been produced showing fraud in the election.
Peters’ team attempted to serve Wood with a subpoena twice during the trial on Friday, which was caught on video, but he refused to accept it both times.
WesternSlopeNow is live-streaming the trial, and the schedule is posted on Peters’ website. The trial is expected to finish on August 12. The first full day of the live-streamed trial on Thursday was covered here.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter / X. Email tips to [email protected].
