Lawyers and Autistic Defendants

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Caliman, C. R., and C. M. Berryessa. 2025. “ Legal Defense of Autistic Defendants in the United States: A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Legal Professionals.” Journal of Social Issues 81, no. 4: e70034. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70034. Abstract:

Autistic individuals encounter distinct barriers within the criminal-legal system, such as misinterpretations of their behaviors, a lack of accommodations, and systemic biases. Despite growing understanding of these challenges, research on how defense attorneys understand and advocate for autistic clients remains limited. This study explores how defense attorneys in the United States conceptualize autism and apply neurodiversity-informed strategies in their advocacy. Semi-structured interviews with 31 defense attorneys revealed that while most attorneys view autism through a medicalized lens, they acknowledge the need for better strategies to secure accommodations in court. Findings suggest that attorneys often rely on expert testimony and recognize the courtroom as primarily designed for neurotypical individuals. Gaps in training and understanding about neurodiversity may hinder effective defense strategies and limit access to justice for autistic defendants. This research highlights the urgent need for enhanced legal training and systemic reform to improve representation and legal experiences for autistic individuals.

From the article:

When applied to the representation of autistic clients, the assumptions underlying the adversarial model, such as a shared understanding of rational legal strategy, communication norms, and courtroom participation, can pose significant challenges. From a procedural perspective, defense attorneys must provide effective counsel by constructing the best possible defense strategy, negotiating plea deals when appropriate, and ensuring their clients are competent to stand trial. This requires legal expertise and an understanding of their clients’ ability to participate in legal proceedings (Smith 2013). Autistic individuals may experience sensory overload, difficulty with language, and distinct social communication styles that affect how they receive and process legal information (Faccini and Burke 2021; Taylor et al. 2009). For example, a client may nod in agreement while masking confusion or distress, leading attorneys to overestimate comprehension and proceed with legal strategies the client does not fully understand (Cooper et al. 2020).

In response to these limitations, alternative frameworks such as therapeutic jurisprudence have emerged to expand how legal professionals conceptualize their roles. Rather than focusing solely on legal outcomes and adversarial performance, therapeutic jurisprudence encourages attorneys to consider how legal processes and strategies affect their clients' emotional, psychological, and cognitive well-being (Wexler 2004; Winick 1999). For defense attorneys working with neurodivergent individuals, this might mean advocating for courtroom accommodations, using adapted communication techniques, or helping secure external supports that foster more accessible legal participation (Berryessa and Caliman 2026). However, the extent to which attorneys should actively intervene in shaping their clients’ legal experience remains a debated ethical issue.

 

California Judges' Knowledge of ASD

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Carolina R. Caliman et al, Brief report: A survey of California state court judges on a case vignette involving a defendant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Research in Autism (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.reia.2026.202803

Abstract

Purpose
This brief report examines the impact of a defendant’s Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis, as well as the influence of expert testimony and genetic evidence, on the perceptions, knowledge, and sentencing views of a sample of state court judges in the U.S.

Methods
Data were collected from sixty-one California Superior Court judges who responded to a survey featuring a structured case study about a defendant diagnosed with ASD. The survey assessed judges’ views on the influence of the defendant’s ASD diagnosis and its genetic etiological influences on sentencing, responsibility, and perceptions of the defendant’s behavior.

Results
Findings indicate that most judges believe that an ASD diagnosis and its genetic influences would influence their sentencing decisions, with almost all considering it a mitigating factor to sentencing, but that it did not substantially affect a defendant’s legal responsibility. Survey responses revealed significant gaps in judges’ knowledge about ASD, underscoring the need for enhanced judicial training.

Conclusion
Findings highlight the influence of ASD and behavioral genetic evidence on judicial views and potential decision-making in cases involving defendants with ASD, indicating a clear need for improved access to education and resources on the disorder. Addressing these educational gaps can help the criminal justice system better accommodate the complexities associated with scientific and ASD evidence, which may promote more equitable treatment for defendants with ASD.

From the article:

This preliminary survey data revealed significant insights into how a defendant’s ASD diagnosis affected judges’ views of different case-related factors. Overall, almost all judges reported that the diagnosis of ASD would be influential in their sentencing decision in the case. These findings suggest that many judges appear sympathetic and cognizant of the challenges associated with ASD in sentencing contexts, with the large majority of judges here indicating that they believe ASD should be viewed as a potential mitigating factor; this is consistent with findings from prior work (Berryessa, 2014b, Berryessa, 2016b). Most judges also reported that knowledge of the genetic etiological influences on a defendant’s ASD was, to some extent, influential in shaping their views on the case, which aligns with previous findings (Berryessa, 2016a).

Most judges viewed the defendant’s legal responsibility to be unaffected by his ASD, which also complements findings from Berryessa (2014b). Yet they also reported that the expert testimony on ASD particularly influenced their views on the defendant’s criminal intention. This suggests that judges may view a defendant as fully legally responsible for his behavior but, at the same time, also deeply question his understanding of his own intentions, actions, and decision-making abilities. This differentiation is consistent with judges’ professional training and their obligation to assess legal responsibility within statutory boundaries; rather than reflecting misunderstanding, the observed difference between moral and legal responsibility likely represents a nuanced awareness of how autism may influence culpability without diminishing legal accountability (Freckelton and List, 2009, Grant et al., 2018). This may suggest that judges may also be likely to view ASD as relevant to other stages of the legal process in which defendants must make decisions; aligned with other work, examining competency to stand trial may be especially relevant, as a defendant’s difficulties in understanding the intent of his own actions could also lead to challenges in comprehending the trial process and assisting in his defense (Brewer et al., 2016, Mayes, 2003). Although an ASD diagnosis alone typically does not meet the statutory criteria for insanity defenses in the United States, ASD-related evidence might be used by attorneys to contextualize behavior and argue for mitigation (Caliman and Berryessa, 2025a, Caliman and Berryessa, 2025b). This approach mirrors the broader defense strategies observed in recent qualitative work, where attorneys emphasize diminished moral culpability, communication challenges, or atypical reasoning patterns to seek leniency and appropriate accommodations for defendants with ASD (Caliman & Berryessa, 2025b).

Additionally, almost all judges reported that the expert testimony influenced their opinions of the case in some way, indicating a potential openness to different types of expert evidence in cases involving ASD (Berryessa, 2017). A small subset of judges, however, reported that the expert testimony did not alter their opinions, which might indicate prior familiarity with ASD or prior experience with defendants with ASD. The findings of this study offer valuable insights for expert witnesses, emphasizing aspects of cases involving ASD, such as criminal intention and dangerousness, that judges may believe are most affected by expert testimony. Similar patterns appear in jury research, where providing accurate information about ASD improves understanding of atypical behavior and leads to less punitive judgments (Baker et al., 2025, Berryessa et al., 2015, Brewer et al., 2016, Maras et al., 2019). These parallels suggest that both jurors and judges benefit from targeted psychoeducation to reduce stigma and support informed decision-making.

Results also revealed significant gaps in judges’ knowledge about ASD and behavioral genetics. Most judges rated their knowledge as slight to moderate, with very few judges rating it as high–aligning with previous work emphasizing the need for better judicial education on complex scientific topics (Berryessa, 2016b, Berryessa, 2019). Most judges expressed an interest in formal training in order to obtain forensic information about ASD and genetics, underscoring the need for comprehensive training programs and continuing education through conferences. By enhancing their knowledge, judges may improve their ability to critically evaluate expert testimony on ASD as well as genetic evidence, mitigating the risk of over-reliance on such evidence and preventing the misuse of unqualified testimony in judicial decision-making processes.

 

Trial Lawyers and Vaccines

 In The Politics of Autism, I analyze the myth that vaccines cause autism. This bogus idea can hurt people by allowing diseases to spread.    Examples include measles, COVID, flu, and polio.  A top antivaxxer is HHS Secretary RFK Jr. He is part of the "Disinformation Dozen." He helped cause a deadly 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa.

He has now hijacked the CDC website -- and the CDC itself.

Amanda Chu at Politico:

Signs of a new legal opportunity emerged earlier this month when Kennedy removed four childhood vaccines from the routine schedule – a move lawyers say could increase litigation against drugmakers. While patients can still receive the vaccines, they are no longer routinely recommended, giving the secretary a legal pathway to exclude them from the table of vaccines covered in the government-run vaccine-injury compensation program without needing congressional approval. That, in turn, would force vaccine-injured patients to sue drugmakers directly for compensation.

“If they remove various vaccines from the vaccine injury table, that would permit consumers to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable in instances where the company failed to warn that the vaccine causes a harm or where the company could have made the vaccine safer but didn’t,” said Aaron Siri, a trial lawyer who has worked with Kennedy.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created by Congress in 1986 after a series of lawsuits against vaccine makers prompted many of them to pull out of the market. The no-fault program provided an immunity shield to vaccine makers while also lowering the burden of proof for people seeking compensation through the program compared to what they’d face in court.
...

The golden age of tort suits, when attorneys had asbestos and tobacco companies to go after, may be over. Tort cases have remained low over the past decade, representing only 6 percent of incoming state trial court civil caseloads in 2024, compared to 7 percent in 2014, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy’s comparison of data from the National Center for State Courts. “The arc of American civil litigation bends not toward expansion but toward contraction,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, an expert on tort law at Stanford University.

When it comes to vaccines, personal injury lawyers who specialize in using the existing compensation system say most plaintiffs alleging they were hurt by a vaccine are likely to do worse in court. Courts will require a higher burden of proof than the compensation program and damages may be too small for a trial lawyer to be interested in pursuing a case, they said.

“The focus on vaccine injury has been dulled and blurred and politicized,” said Robert Krakow, a vaccine injury lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on past litigation, including suits against Merck over the Gardasil vaccine.

Special Ed and Religious Schools in California

In The Politics of Autism, I write about social services, special education, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

On May 19, 2025, in response to a Ninth Circuit decision, the California Department of Education (“CDE”) and the Los Angeles Unified School District agreed to permanent injunctions stating that they will no longer enforce the “nonsectarian requirement” set forth in the California Education Code for certification of nonpublic schools. This agreement means that the CDE will no longer require private entities to be “nonsectarian” to receive certification as a nonpublic school for placements of students with exceptional needs. Students with an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) may be directly placed in both religious and nonreligious private schools certified by the CDE as a nonpublic school at the school district’s expense.

This agreement follows the Ninth Circuit Court’s October 2024 decision in Loffman v. California Department of Education (2024) 119 F.4th 1147, in which two Orthodox Jewish schools and three Orthodox Jewish families challenged the nonsectarian requirement. The Plaintiffs in Loffman claimed that the nonsectarian requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the matter to the district court, but CDE chose to enter into an agreement with Plaintiffs instead of pursuing the case further.

In Loffman, the Plaintiffs argued, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that they were being forced to choose between receiving the full benefits they were entitled to under the IDEA and their choice of education in an Orthodox Jewish setting. In its decision, the Ninth Circuit stated that nonsectarian requirement was not a neutral or generally applicable policy, because it singled out religious entities for different treatment. By placing burdens on sincere religious practice in this way, the policy was subject to strict scrutiny review, and could only be upheld if determined to be “narrowly tailored” to serve a compelling governmental interest.

The Ninth Circuit noted that the IDEA, a federal law, contemplates private placement at public expense in religious institutions, though any services provided with public funds must be “secular, neutral, and nonideological.” In contrast, the California Education Code is more restrictive than the federal law and required that private placement be in a nonsectarian institution to receive public funds. Because the federal law was less restrictive than California’s policy, the Ninth Circuit held that CDE failed to show that the nonsectarian requirement was narrowly tailored. In reaching the settlement referenced above, the CDE chose not to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court, and stated that the Education Code requirement that nonpublic schools be nonsectarian was unconstitutional and would not be enforced.

The decision in Loffman was based in part on a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the Free Exercise Clause, which support the principle that placing a condition on benefits or privileges based on religious affiliation penalizes the free exercise of religion. (Carson v. Makin (2022) 596 U.S. 767; Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Rev. (2020) 591 U.S. 464; Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017) 582 U.S. 449.) However, Loffman stands in contrast with the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2025 ruling in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which also addressed questions raised by this series of cases.

In Drummond, the Court affirmed the lower ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which prohibited Oklahoma’s Charter School Board from entering a contract that would have used public funds to establish St. Isidore, a Catholic school, as part of the State’s public charter program. The U.S. Supreme Court was split 4-4 in issuing its decision, with Justice Barrett recusing herself. Therefore, it does not constitute nationwide binding precedent. The Court did not provide an opinion explaining its decision, and the decision was issued per curiam, without revealing how each Justice voted. That said, some of the reasoning behind the decision may be drawn from the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling and the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Loffman, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Plaintiffs’ argument that California’s nonsectarian requirement effectively forced the Plaintiffs to choose between receiving the full benefits they were entitled to under the IDEA and education in an Orthodox Jewish setting. In Drummond, the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that St. Isidore was proposing that the State provide monetary support to teach a Catholic curriculum. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision was based partly on the fact that St. Isidore, as a charter school, would be a state-created religious institution. This issue was also addressed at oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

The key distinction between the two cases seems to be that in Drummond, the issue was whether State funds could be used to create a new religious institution, whereas in Loffman, the issue was whether the Plaintiffs could not receive special education benefits they would have been entitled to had they sought to place their students in nonsectarian schools.

Reading Loffman and Drummond together may be illustrative of how courts going forward will address the issue of allowing religious institutions to access public funds. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court’s split on Drummond makes it unclear whether the distinction between the two cases will prove meaningful in the future.

California LEAs should be aware that, pursuant to the injunctions agreed upon by the parties in Loffman, the Ninth Circuit will declare that the California Education Code’s nonsectarian requirement is unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause, and CDE will be prohibited from enforcing it. Accordingly, CDE will not require nonpublic entities to be nonsectarian or attest to nonsectarian status in applying for, obtaining, or maintaining contracts to serve as a nonpublic schools for the placement of students with exceptional needs.

Should you have specific questions regarding the content of this Alert or your agency’s response to the Executive Order, please contact the authors of this Alert or your usual AALRR counsel.

Fighting Back

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss the issue's role in campaign politics.   In the 2016 campaign, a number of posts discussed Trump's bad record on disability issues more generally.   As his words and actions have shown, he despises Americans with disabilities.   

Peter Gordon and Alexandra Cogan at the Center for American Progress:

The Trump administration started implementing Project 2025 immediately upon taking office, and as predicted, it is already harming disabled people. Far-reaching administrative actions such as the executive order on “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s memo on freezing federal spending have caused significant confusion for disabled people and organizations that serve them across the country. While the administration battles the legality of the executive orders in the courts, nonprofit organizations and state programs have had to cut back on services, lay off staff, and even shut down.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is attacking spending it deems wasteful, resulting in mass layoffs of federal workers that have especially affected disabled workers, who often have longer probationary periods due to Schedule A hiring processes. The administration and Congress are also on the verge of making significant cuts to Medicaid and Social Security benefits, two of the most successful anti-poverty programs that keep disabled people in their communities. This onslaught of destructive policies is seemingly intended to keep advocates stressed and disorganized.

That is why it is essential for disability rights advocates and other allied organizations to create a plan of action that builds cross-movement solidarity, interdependence, and collective liberation—all core principles of disability justice. Over the next few years, the disability advocacy community must work creatively to develop a proactive plan of action that centers community care and support. The Center for American Progress’ Disability Justice Initiative, along with its numerous community partners, has been working to push back against the executive and legislative branches’ sweeping actions, identifying three areas where the disability advocacy community could have maximum impact:

• Litigation: Protecting and defending basic civil rights
• Narrative building: Developing a strong message to better communicate and advocate
• Organization: Building partnerships and coalitions to share resources, knowledge, and collective power

Abbott Would Have Let Roberson DIe

 In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

An autistic man is on death row for a crime he didn't commit.  Texas Governor Greg Abbott would not grant a reprieve.  Now he objects to a delay in his execution.

Berenice Garcia at The Texas Tribune:

Gov. Greg Abbott's office condemned the actions of a bipartisan group of Texas legislators Monday, effectively breaking his silence in the pending execution of Robert Roberson.

In an amicus brief filed by James P. Sullivan, the governor's general counsel, the governor's office said lawmakers “stepped out of line” when they intervened to save Roberson’s life.

The brief argued the power to grant clemency in a capital case, including a 30-day reprieve, lies with the governor alone.

"Unless the Court rejects that tactic, it can be repeated in every capital case, effectively rewriting the Constitution to reassign a power given only to the Governor," Sullivan argued.

Bayliss Wagner and John C. Moritz, Austin American-Statesman:

After a dramatic flurry of weekend court filings, the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Monday opted to delay hearing testimony from death row inmate Robert Roberson, scuttling a controversial plan that drew national attention and avoiding what might have been a developing constitutional crisis in state government.

But the committee did hear from one member of the jury that convicted Roberson, who told the panel that if she had known of new evidence that calls into question the foundational premise of the trial — that the condemned man had killed his daughter by shaking her to death — she would have voted to set him free at trial.

Greg Abbott Did Nothing

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

An autistic man is on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

Terri Langford at The Texas Tribune:

In a state where the death penalty is as ingrained as cowboy boots and conservative politics, news of Robert Roberson’s death sentence broke through in Texas after the rarest of phenoms: a noisy, bipartisan effort that bypassed the governor’s office to save a man from lethal injection.

For years, the appeals of Roberson’s capital murder conviction for the 2002 death of his chronically ill, 2-year-old daughter had lumbered through the courts, tracing a byzantine process that often fails to register with residents of the nation’s execution capital, where 591 inmates have been put to death in the state since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976.

But while lawmakers were making historic interventions, many Texans took note of the silence by the person traditionally empowered to step in at the last minute: Gov. Greg Abbott.

“Abbott’s silence is deafening,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston.

...

Roberson, 57, of Palestine, was convicted of his daughter’s death in 2003 after an autopsy determined his daughter, Nikki, who had been ill with a fever, had died of shaking and blows. Investigators believed that Roberson’s emotionless demeanor was further evidence of his guilt. Roberson has since been diagnosed as having autism, which could explain Roberson’s behavior at the time. A police detective whose investigation sent the East Texas man to death row, now supports Roberson’s claims of innocence.

Roberson Still Faces Execution

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

An autistic man is on death row for a crime he didn't commit.

Kim Bellware and Tobi Raji at WP:

The path to stopping the country’s first execution based on the widely refuted theory known as “shaken baby syndrome” narrowed Tuesday after a district judge in Texas declined to vacate the death warrant for Robert Roberson, a 57-year-old man with autism who is scheduled to die by lethal injection this week.

Roberson’s case has galvanized a bipartisan coalition of 86 Texas lawmakers, scientists and even the former lead detective from his 2002 case to fight for a reprieve. Supporters cite Roberson’s case as a prime example of a conviction wrongfully secured by a decades-old theory many scientists and legal experts say is unreliable “junk science” in the vein of discredited forensics such as bite-mark and bloodstain-pattern analysis.

Lawyers for Roberson argue he faces execution over a nonexistent crime: His 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis died in 2002 from an undiagnosed case of double pneumonia, lawyers said; doctors incorrectly presumed symptoms such as brain swelling and bleeding were from abuse and did not investigate other possibilities. Suspicion of Roberson’s guilt was fueled by his seemingly unemotional response to Nikki’s dire condition — the result, lawyers say, of autism spectrum disorder, which he was not formally diagnosed with until 2018.

The Autism Society of America and @AutismTx are urgently appealing to Texas Governor Abbott to grant clemency to Robert Roberson, an Autistic individual facing execution in less than a week. See how you can take Action in our Press Release. https://t.co/7cQRGsSz8F

— autismsociety (@AutismSociety) October 15, 2024

Texas Justice and an Autistic Child

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Talia Richman at The Dallas Morning News:

The classroom was loud that day, and Hasan doesn’t like loud.

So the 10-year-old boy decided to go on a walk through Frisco’s Bledsoe Elementary. His specialized education plan — required because of his autism — allowed for sensory breaks.

On his way out the door, he said something. His fifth-grade teacher quickly reported what she heard on the morning of March 29, 2022: “Maybe I should bring a gun to school, then maybe they will listen to me.”

These words — which his parents say were grossly misunderstood — would derail Hasan’s childhood and education for the next two years. They would plunge his family into a haze of anxiety, costing tens of thousands of dollars to navigate the juvenile justice system. Ultimately, they would force them to question what it means to raise a child in America.

...

Hasan was arrested and charged with a Class A misdemeanor for the threat of exhibiting a firearm at school. The charge doesn’t require the person to display a gun or to have access to one.

He became one of roughly 1,110 Texas children referred to the justice system for this misdemeanor charge in the last six fiscal years, according to state juvenile justice data. More children were referred for this charge in 2023 — after the Uvalde massacre — than in any other recent year.

About half of the such cases involved kids between 10 and 13 years old.

...'

On that March day, a school resource officer questioned Hasan before Tahmina learned her son was in trouble. When school officials contacted her, she rushed to the campus.

Tahmina watched as Hasan was loaded into a police cruiser in the Bledsoe Elementary parking lot. Handcuffs clanked around his skinny wrists.

Police fingerprinted the boy and took his mugshot. He stood just over 4 feet tall. Hasan wasn’t sure whether he should smile, like he normally would for a picture, or make a mean face. He said he thought mugshots were only for burglars or serial killers.

After two years, prosecutors dropped charges.

Still, the family doesn’t feel whole. Hasan’s confidence is shattered, his parents say. He stopped believing in his Stanford dream. The 10-year-old boy who said he wanted to be the greatest scientist of all time is now a 13-year-old doing science classes from his bedroom.

Tahmina and Mohammed are afraid of sending their son back to school in Frisco — or any in-person school. They’ve considered moving.

They still question, months after the dismissal, why it happened. They think often about the way their country’s love — and fear — of guns shaped their son’s world.

“We call this a first-world country? Where we treat our children like this and criminalize them?” Tahmina asked.

 

Autism and a Capital Case

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Maurice Chammah at the Marshall Project:

Robert Roberson, who faces execution in Texas on Oct. 17, is the latest death row prisoner to see a glossy campaign to save his life. He was convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter Nikki Curtis in 2002 on a theory of “shaken baby syndrome.” A growing chorus, from the lead detective in his case to novelist John Grisham, is arguing that he is innocent and Curtis’ death, while a tragedy, was not a crime. He’d be the first person ever executed based on shaken baby syndrome, even as the diagnosis faces growing scrutiny in the courts.

But another fact about Roberson deserves more attention to make sense of his story — his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.

From the moment he showed up at the hospital with his daughter turning blue, his case reveals the ways the criminal justice system can fail people with diagnoses like autism. Roberson’s execution has been scheduled amid a wave of attention to this subject from researchers, journalists and support organizations, who offer guides for autistic people and their parents on how to interact with police.

My colleagues have reported on how people with autism experience prison, for example, as well as encounters with police, which can turn deadly when officers misinterpret their behavior as suspicious. Some lawmakers are trying to reduce the risk of escalation and tragedy. For example, when looking up a license plate, Texas police may now see an alert indicating that a driver may have difficulty communicating.

But Roberson’s case shows what can happen even before the police get involved. When he took his unconscious daughter to an emergency room in the small east Texas city of Palestine, in 2002, a nurse found it strange that he’d gotten her dressed before leaving their house, according to court records. Later, as he showed detectives around his kitchen, he paused to make a sandwich. Former homicide Detective Brian Wharton recalled finding Roberson’s affect disconcerting, saying, “He’s not getting mad, he’s not getting sad, he’s just not right.”

At Roberson’s 2003 trial, prosecutors used those details to portray him as callous and remorseless. But at a 2018 appeal hearing, psychologist Diane Mosnik said autism helped explain his deviations from social norms (like the sandwich), the misalignment of his feelings and expressions (the flat affect), and his reliance on scripted behavior (dressing his daughter). She found his social problem-solving skills were equivalent to those of an 11-year-old, noting his struggles to understand sarcasm and sincerity.

All of this, Roberson’s lawyers now say, led nurses, doctors, police, prosecutors and jurors to distrust Roberson’s story — that his daughter fell out of bed — possibly making them more likely to see evidence of abuse in complicated medical findings.

RFK Jr. Lies Again

In The Politics of Autism, I analyze the discredited notion that vaccines cause autism. This bogus idea can hurt people by allowing diseases to spread.   And among those diseases could be COVID-19.

Antivaxxers are sometimes violent, often abusive, and always wrong. A leading anti-vaxxer is presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  He has repeatedly compared vaccine mandates to the Holocaust.  Rolling Stone and Salon retracted an RFK article linking vaccines to autism.

He is now running for president as an independent.

Madison Czopek at PolitiFact:

After an appeals court ruled in favor of Los Angeles school employees who opposed COVID-19 vaccination mandates, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., celebrated on social media.

"The ranks of the conspiracy theorists now include the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just ruled Covid vax mandates unconstitutional because the vaccine does not stop transmission," Kennedy wrote in a June 12 Facebook post. "I dunno, maybe it’s the brain worm, but I seem to remember the experts and authorities telling us otherwise."

But Kennedy’s characterization distorts the court’s ruling. Kennedy has made misleading anti-vaccine claims a hallmark of his work and campaign. Kennedy’s campaign of conspiracy theories was PolitiFact's 2023 Lie of the Year.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on June 7 ruled only that the lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Unified School District could move forward. It overturned a lower court decision to dismiss the lawsuit, which was brought by the nonprofit Health Freedom Defense Fund, which advocates against vaccine mandates, and employees who opposed the district’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

SBF

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

J6 insurrectionists unsuccessfully used autism in their legal defense.

Eric M. Garcia at MSNBC:

The 25-year sentence Sam Bankman-Fried got Thursday for defrauding users of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX is evidence that the defendant’s past attempts to have his autism considered a mitigating factor during the judge’s sentencing decisions didn’t work. Multiple people had argued on Bankman-Fried’s behalf that his autism made him less culpable for his crimes or less deserving of a lengthy stay in prison.

...

Reading these statements as an autistic person evoked in me conflicting thoughts: The plea for leniency because of Bankman-Fried’s neurotype follows a tired trope. We’ve seen such appeals before. An attorney for Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon Shaman, said of him and other January 6 defendants, “These are people with brain damage, they’re f------ retarded, they’re on the g--d---n spectrum.” Those narratives equate bad behavior with autistic traits and imply that autism makes people commit crimes.

...

Yes, prison conditions are especially hard on autistic people. Those advocating on behalf of Bankman-Fried aren’t wrong to think so. All the same,  Bankman-Fried’s attempt to use his neurodivergence as a means to escape the consequences of his actions are wrong.The criminal justice system consistently fails neurodivergent people, but Bankman-Fried is not in that number.

The Pennsylvania Cliff

 In The Politics of Autism, I write:

When disabled people reach their 22d birthday, they no longer qualify for services under IDEA. ... People in the disability community refer to this point in life as “the cliff.” Once autistic people go over the cliff, they have a hard time getting services such as job placement, vocational training, and assistive technology. IDEA entitles students to transition planning services during high school, but afterwards, they have to apply as adults and establish eligibility for state and federal help. One study found that 39 percent of young autistic adults received no service at all, and most of the rest got severely limited services.

From the Public Interest Law Center:

Pennsylvania’s students with disabilities can now receive a free and appropriate public education until they turn 22—a policy change that will provide months of additional support to young adults across the commonwealth at a crucial juncture in their lives. Today, as part of a settlement reached in a federal class action lawsuit, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) announced a change to their previous eligibility policy, which aged students out of special education services at the end of the school term in which they turned 21.

The policy change follows a lawsuit filed by A.P., a 19-year-old student with multiple disabilities, and his family. The case challenged PDE’s previous age out policy for failing to comply with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees students with disabilities the right to receive individualized support services until they either earn a regular high school diploma or turn 22. The Public Interest Law Center and Berney & Sang represented A.P. and his family in the case.

As part of the settlement, Pennsylvania updated its age-out policy—effective immediately—allowing eligible students with disabilities to continue to receive a free and appropriate public education until their 22nd birthday. The policy change also applies to eligible students who turned 21 during the 2022-23 school year and were prematurely exited from school under PDE’s old policy. These students will have the option to re-enroll in public school this school year.

The updated policy will have a significant impact for hundreds of students like A.P., who works with personal care assistants and receives occupational therapy, speech therapy, and transition services to help him prepare to successfully transition to adult life. His 21st birthday is in February 2025, and under the old policy, he would have lost access to these services in summer 2025 at the end of the school year. Now, under the new policy, he will be able to continue to receive services until his 22nd birthday in February 2026—more than six months later.

As part of the settlement, PDE has sent a letter to all families with 21-year-old students with disabilities who may be eligible to continue to receive services, and posted an FAQ on their website about the new policy. PDE has also sent a notice to the superintendents and special education directors of all school districts, charter schools, and intermediate units in Pennsylvania telling them to contact students and provide them with the option to re-enroll.

The Public Interest Law Center and Berney & Sang, attorneys representing A.P. and his family, released the following statement:

“The PA Department of Education’s new policy complies with federal law and allows students to receive the support they are entitled to until they turn 22. This is a significant step forward for young adults with disabilities in Pennsylvania. We commend PDE for acting promptly and meaningfully in response to our class action lawsuit, and we look forward to working with them to ensure that students with disabilities are able to receive the support they deserve to prepare for the next stage in their lives.”

Detention Alternative for Autistic Youth

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Denise Rosch at KSNV:

It's another busy afternoon in Judge Sunny Bailey’s courtroom.

“The terms and conditions will be as follows, you need to stay out of trouble,” she tells a young defendant.

One by one teenagers arrive for a status check, but this is no ordinary juvenile delinquency caseload.

Everyone on the docket is autistic. Requiring something more from the justice system.

“The regular probation system doesn't account for the type of thinking and the type of needs that kids on the spectrum have,” explains Chief Deputy District Attorney Summer Clarke. “So, by having DAAY court we have services and providers right there that we can plug in.”

DAAY court, or Detention Alternative for Autistic Youth aims to do exactly what the name implies.

Keep young offenders out of lockup, and the revolving door that can be the criminal justice system.

 

Nevada to Establish Diversionary Court Program

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

Casey Harrison at The Las Vegas Sun:

Nevada is primed to become the first in the nation to establish a diversionary court program statewide for at-risk adolescent youths with autism, a move officials say will help children on the spectrum stay on a path of success.

Gov. Joe Lombardo held a ceremonial signing Monday in Las Vegas for Senate Bill 411, which allows family courts statewide to establish an “appropriate program” for children diagnosed with or suspected to have autism spectrum disorders. The bill passed unanimously through the Nevada Legislature.

“It shows you how much effort it takes to have successful legislation,” Lombardo told attendees at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, which included autism advocates, judges and public defenders. “The thing that surprised me with today’s bill is that it hasn’t happened before today. And that’s unfortunate, but now, fortunately, we’re moving forward as a community.”

A child assigned to the program must be made aware of the terms for successful completion of the program, including probation or other informal supervision, and the court must also provide benchmarks to “ensure that every child is making satisfactory progress” toward completing the program.

Clark County’s 8th Judicial District Court launched a similar diversionary program in 2018, spearheaded by juvenile court Judge Sunny Bailey, who is the mother of an autistic child, she told the Sun.

That program, which is called Detention Alternative for Autistic Youth, or DAAY Court, came about after Bailey was assigned a case involving a delinquent on the spectrum. She and others from the district attorney’s office volunteered on the side to develop a tailored supervision program to fit that child’s needs.

Lawyer Tries to Get Autistic Client to Melt Down

In The Politics of Autism, I write:

There is no evidence linking autism to planned violence, but in recent years, mass shootings by young men have led commentators in the mainstream media and on the Internet to suggest such a connection. After the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, for instance, news reports said that the shooter was on the spectrum. The speculation made little sense to anyone who understood autism. Whereas autistic people have language delays and deficits, the killer had learned English as a second language — and learned it well enough to major in the subject in college. Later on, it turned out that he had an entirely different problem, a social anxiety disorder. Adam Lanza, who committed the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, may have had an Asperger’s diagnosis, but his father emphasized that his behavior stemmed from the psychiatric illnesses that he also had. Nevertheless, the media speculated about Lanza’s place on the spectrum, which worried autism parents. One mother of an autistic child wrote: “This is the first time I'm truly afraid for him. Afraid of what may happen to my son with autism at the hands of a stranger; a stranger who has chosen to buy into the media-fueled misinformation that individuals diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder are dangerous and capable of horrendous acts of terror and violence.”

Capitol insurrectionist Jacob Chansley -- the "QAnon Shaman" -- unsuccessfully used autism as a defense earlier this year. 

Another insurrectionist failed with a similar argument.  And now this:

Kyle Cheney at Politico:

Jurors in the recently concluded trial of six Oath Keeper affiliates were “horrified” by a defense attorney’s effort to provoke his autistic client into a “breakdown” on the witness stand, one of those jurors said Tuesday in a newly released interview.

A woman who helped decide the fate of the six defendants sat last week for a 90-minute interview with C-SPAN — her employer of 32 years — just two days after the jury completed its work. She provided extraordinary details about the tense closed-door deliberations that resulted in four defendants being convicted of obstructing Congress for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Identified only as Ellen, the juror told C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb that several members of the jury cried in the courtroom while they watched one of those defendants, William Isaacs, take the stand under grilling from his own attorney. The jury interpreted the strategy as a “stunt” designed to accentuate Isaacs’ struggle with autism, she said.

“His defense attorney tried to get him to fall apart by yelling at him and not letting him wear his headset,” Ellen recalled. “He was torturing his client to get us to feel sympathy.”

What was worse, the juror recalled, was that the judge ultimately instructed the jury not to consider Isaacs’ autism as a defense against his potential crimes, which meant the entire spectacle had been “a waste of time.

...

Isaacs’ attorney, Charles Greene, acknowledged that most of the jury recoiled at his posture toward his autistic client. It was all by design, he said, because he viewed acquittal as possible only if the jury could see Isaacs’ profound struggle.

“The strategy was: The jury’s going to hate me, but usually when you kick a puppy, the jury hates the person who kicks the puppy but they have sympathy for the puppy,” Greene told POLITICO.

Autism and Criminal Justice

In The Politics of Autism, I discuss interactions between the justice system and autistic people.

A release from Drexel University:

Across the United States, reports of autistic youth experiencing dangerous, life-altering and even fatal interactions with the criminal justice system are becoming more common. Research suggests that autistic individuals interact with police at high rates and individuals with disabilities disproportionately experience police violence.

Researchers from the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University recently published research that identified the experiences of autistic individuals and their caregivers across their interactions with the criminal justice system through analysis of a statewide survey in Pennsylvania.

The study analyzed free-text responses and multiple-choice questions about types of justice system interactions from the 2018 Pennsylvania Autism Needs Assessment (2018 PANA), a large survey of autistic individuals and their families that included questions about demographic and clinical information, as well as service needs and experiences.

The study sample of 3,902 individuals represents 47% of the full 8,240 respondents to the 2018 PANA. A total of 839 respondents reported information about their criminal justice system interaction through the free-text question.

The findings highlighted the detailed experiences of autistic individuals and their caregivers as victims of an interaction, criminal offenders and witnesses to a crime, with respondents reporting both positive and negative experiences. Researchers also identified an increased risk for interaction with the justice system, including being male and having a co-occurring psychiatric diagnosis. 

• Among autistic adult respondents, males were almost twice as likely to be stopped and questioned by police, arrested or charged, while females were at 32% greater odds of being the victim of a crime.
• Having a psychiatric co-occurring diagnosis was associated with about 2.7 times the odds of any justice system interaction and 2.4 times the odds of being a victim of a crime among autistic individuals.
• Among caregiver respondents, having an annual household income greater than $40,000 were protective against being a victim of a crime.
• Living with a roommate or family member was protective against being the victim of a crime among caregiver respondents regarding their autistic child.

Analysis of the free-text responses yielded several themes. 

• One-quarter of respondents described being the victim of a crime.
• One-quarter of respondents described being an offender.
• A small number of respondents (1.5%) described being a witness to a crime.
• Almost equal proportions of respondents described a positive perception of the justice system (8%) and negative perception of the justice System (9%).
• Finally, a small but notable proportion of respondents (1.5%) identified having a concern for there being a future interaction with the justice system.

“These findings are impactful because they come directly from the voices of autistic individuals and their families,” said Kaitlin Koffer Miller, lead author of the study and director of Policy Impact in the Policy and Analytics Center in the Autism Institute. “Understanding the type and scope of justice interaction helps to plan for and address issues that could prevent future interactions of all types.”

The research team explained that increasing access for autistic individuals to home and community-based services and supports can prevent or mitigate interactions between autistic individuals and the justice system, both as victims and offenders. It is the hope of the study team that findings from this study will propel policy to increase access to the needed supports to prevent these unwanted outcomes for autistic individuals.

Additionally, expanding pilot justice programs that include mental health professionals in crisis responses, like the co-responder model, will be beneficial to ensure minimal trauma and escalation of a justice system interaction.

The study, “Justice System Interactions Among Autistic Individuals: A Multiple Methods Analysis,” was recently published in the journal Crime & Delinquency. Co-authors include Alec Becker, Dylan Cooper and Lindsay Shea, DrPH of Drexel University.