The preliminary survey data presented here, collected from 61 California Superior Court judges, revealed significant insights into how different case-related factors were affected by their views and knowledge of a defendant’s ASD diagnosis. Overall, almost all judges reported that the diagnosis of ASD would be influential to their sentence provided in the case, with 60 out of 61 judges indicating that the evidence on the defendant’s ASD would impact the punishment that they rendered. 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 in this study indicating that they believe that ASD should be viewed as a potential mitigating factor; this is consistent with findings from previous qualitative studies on the topic (Berryessa, 2014b; 2016b). Most judges also reported that knowledge of the genetic etiological influences on a defendant’s ASD was, to some extent, influential to their views on the case, which also aligns with findings from previous research (Berryessa, 2016a).
The defendant’s legal responsibility was viewed by most judges to be unaffected by his disorder, which also complements this prior work (Berryessa, 2014b). Yet they also reported that the expert testimony on ASD particularly influenced their views on the defendant’s criminal intention and behavior. This suggests that judges may view a defendant as fully responsible for his behavior but, at the same time, also deeply question the defendant’s understanding of their own intention, actions, and decision-making abilities. As decision-making abilities are affected, aside from considering offending behavior, judges may also be likely to view ASD as relevant to and as potentially impacting 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 their own actions could also lead to challenges in comprehending the trial process and assisting in their defense (Brewer et al., 2016; Mayes, 2003). Future studies should explore how legal decision-makers assess the legal capacities and competency of defendants with ASD.
Additionally, almost all judges reported that the expert testimony on the defendant’s disorder in some way influenced their opinions on the case, indicating a potential openness to different types of expert evidence in cases involving ASD (Berryessa, 2017). The findings of the study offer valuable insights for expert witnesses, emphasizing aspects of cases or defendants with ASD that judges report are most affected by expert testimony, such as criminal intention and dangerousness. Future studies should examine real-world cases involving defendants with ASD to determine the impact of expert testimony on different types of legal outcomes.
Survey results also revealed significant gaps in judges’ knowledge about ASD and behavioral genetic science. 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 medical and genetic topics (Berryessa, 2016b; 2019). Most judges expressed an interest in formal judicial training in order to obtain forensic information about ASD and genetics, underscoring the need for comprehensive training programs and continuing judicial education through conferences and academic sources. By enhancing their knowledge, judges can also 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.
The study does have some limitations. The sample size was limited to 61 judges from California, which may not represent judges in other jurisdictions or other California state court judges. Additionally, the study relied on self-report data and was limited to judges who responded to the survey; such responses might reflect their interest in the matter and different views than other judicial populations. Despite these limitations, the study provides important insights into judges’ views of and decision-making processes involving defendants with ASD. Findings suggest that integrating expert testimony into cases involving defendants with ASD may allow judges to more holistically analyze the circumstances of cases involving the diagnosis. Additionally, providing judges with the comprehensive and ongoing training that they desire may also help them better understand the forensic nuances of ASD and its potential impacts on behavior–ultimately leading to more informed outcomes for diagnosed defendants.