Colorado, which apparently still has the death penalty, is currently trying Edward Montour for the beating death of Eric Autobee, a correctional guard. Montour was serving a life sentence for another killing at the time, so the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.
Except, according to Bob Autobee, Eric’s father, Eric was against the death penalty and so is he.
For months now, Bob Autobee has been making a stand against the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty, even protesting outside the very courthouse where his son’s killer is being tried.
“I don’t want my son’s name attached to this lynch mob,” Autobee told The Denver Post. Autobee said that during a meeting with [District Attorney] Brauchler last year, he told the district attorney he would fight his decision.
Brauchler declined to comment, citing the ongoing case. But in a statement he released after he announced his decision in April, Brauchler said in addition to the family’s wishes, he must also consider the safety of corrections officers.
As a death penalty opponent, I do have a biased view of this: I think that the prosecutor should exercise rare discretion in seeking the death penalty and take into account the victim’s and any family’s opinions on the death penalty, almost always erring toward the side of not pursuing death. But Colorado has the death penalty and I suppose the prosecutor is within his rights to seek it.
But he wants to go a step further and not only seek the death penalty, but prevent Autobee from telling jurors that he and his son are opposed to the death penalty. Autobee has made his peace with Montour and forgiven him for his actions, but the jurors, who are also supposed to make highly individual moral decisions shouldn’t be told any of that, according to the prosecutor.
A prosecution motion filed Jan. 6 argues that Colorado law allows victims to testify about the impact a crime had on them but not about their opinions on the death penalty.
I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, but I’m no expert on Colorado law. I do think, however, that if the shoe were on the other foot, the prosecution would have no problem allowing Autobee to express his fervent desire to see Montour hanged or shot.
Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic makes the same point:
Colorado law “only guarantees the right of the victims to discuss the harm that resulted from the crime,” Brauchler argues, and this limits “evidence from the victims to the characteristics of the victim and the impact of the crime on the victim’s family.” It is “not the court process that can be attacked by the victims,” prosecutors assert, before claiming that Montour’s Eighth Amendment rights will be implicated if the Autobees speak out in his favor. You don’t need to be a lawyer, or a juror, to understand that this is a terrible argument. And Brauchler cites no controlling Colorado law in support of it.
In fact, as Cohen points out, it’s quite the opposite:
In their response, the Autobees’ attorney seem incredulous as they recite the provisions of Colorado law that support their view. “A crime victim,” they told the court, has the “‘right to appear, personally or with counsel, at the sentencing proceeding and to adequately and reasonably express his or her views’ regarding ‘the type of sentence which should be imposed by the court.’” Under Colorado law, the Autobees added, “prosecutors are required to support — not oppose — this right by ‘inform[ing] each victim of’ his or her ‘right to ‘express an opinion at the sentencing hearing or any sentence proposed to the court for consideration” (emphasis in original).
It just seems a little bloodthirsty to me to actively prevent Autobee from expressing his feelings about the trial. Victims come in all shapes and sizes and yes, in this day and age some will oppose the death penalty. This cherry picking by the prosecution of who gets to be a “victim” based on whether their political views align is disgusting and yet another reason why the implementation of the death penalty is so flawed.