Brief report: A survey of California state court judges on a case vignette involving a defendant with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

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. 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. 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. 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. • Most judges saw Autism as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions. • ASD diagnosis had little effect on judges’ views of a defendant’s legal responsibility. • Expert testimony strongly shaped judges’ perceptions of criminal intention. • Judges reported limited knowledge of ASD and behavioral genetics. • Findings support need for judicial training on neurodiversity.