Bryan Kohberger: The Legal System’s Struggle With Autism

Autism On The Rise

Autism rises in interest these days, as so many people fall on the spectrum. And that’s why the idea of an “Autism Defense” caught attention, per the North Eastern University’s College of Social Sciences and Humanities.

In that respect, the murder case really just fizzled into nothing. So, no massive landmark benchmarks arrived. Mainly, that happened because Bryan Kohberger opted for a plea deal in early July last year.

The Defense Argument 

The killer of Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison “Maddie” Mogen, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Ethan Chapin, was sentenced to life without parole. However, prior to that, his defense team pushed for the court to treat autism the same way it treats intellectual disability.

Apart from removing the potential death penalty, a precedent might have been set. Unfortunately, Judge Steven Hippler didn’t buy into it. Instead, he argued that autism isn’t an intellectual disability.

No Federal Standard

While it seemed interesting at the time, there’s something that tons of true crime followers need to know. Across the USA, when it comes to autism and related defense, there isn’t any federal standard.

In fact, with the different states, criminal law looks rather like your great-grandmother’s patchwork quilt. So, even if there’d been a positive outcome for the defense, using it in future could depend on what state a person was tried in.

Established Law Matters

Notably, some states like Idaho don’t have an insanity defense these days. The trouble for defense teams lies in the fact that the tenets of courtroom law were set long before anyone even knew what the spectrum meant.

Another angle to look at, is that legal beagles can only use the insanity defense if knowing right from wrong can be established. However, people like Bryan Kohberger more than likely knew differences between right and wrong. In fact, most people on the spectrum understand the concept of morality, per Spinger Medicine.

Used In Mitigation?

While it’s possibly arguable that there’s an aspect of diminished capacity, some states don’t want to hear about that, anyway. Basically, it means that an autism defense might only be useful during mitigation.

What does that mean? Well, essentially, mitigation doesn’t play a massive role in court. Notably, legal teams can use it during the sentencing phase, and most often, it’s used to try and get the judge to buy into a bit of leniency once the person is found guilty.

The Topic Arose In Bryan’s Case

The main reason why the Kohberger case seemed different with the “Autism Defense” arose because of his lawyer, Anne Taylor. If you don’t know, she argued very strongly that autism should be treated like an intellectual disability under the Atkins v. Virginia precedent.

It failed, but if it worked, then it might have changed a lot. In other words, it could have even challenged the constitutional ethics of the death penalty.

The Atkins Case Didn’t Apply

Nevertheless, that threat ended when Hippler ruled that autism didn’t affect the Atkins decision when it came to Kohberger. Certainly, he seemed on point, because it isn’t there to protect ending up on death row.  

Well, it was all over when Bryan pleaded guilty. Anyway, precedents in law take ages to arrive. And certainly they don’t arrive just because of a plea deal.

Changes To The Law Take Time

No jury meant no appellate court sessions, so the argument crashed and burned. Therefore, at the end of the day, the discussion about mental health became nothing more than a footnote.

If you followed the case, you probably saw that court documents revealed Bryan Kohberger was diagnosed with autism level one, OCD, ADHD, and an eating disorder called ARFID. But none of that changed anything in law.

A Legal Issue Other Lawyers Discuss

Make no mistake, Anne Taylor knew her stuff. And in fact,she’s not the first person to argue for consideration regarding autism. For years, attorneys talked about how the legal system isn’t right when it comes to handling neurodivergence.

For now, it seems that there are no gray areas, and no middle ground. Either your sanity is good enough for full responsibility, or you had no idea what the heck was going on. For now, autism sits somewhere in the middle of diminished responsibility and being able to cope with moral responsibility

Kohberger choosing a plea deal meant that Idaho never had to defend its mental health laws in an appellate court.  

No Changes For Now

For now, autism might get a defendant a bit of leniency during the sentencing phase of the courtroom. However, it seems there’s no way anyone can get off the hook because of it. While the Kohberger case could have possibly forced changes, it simply didn’t run on for long enough, so there’s nothing new.

For true crime followers, a sense of disappointment seemed obvious when Bryan took that guilty plea. Certainly, he did it to avoid the death sentence. But the autism argument didn’t get a chance to even try and change things.

Perhaps, in time, another case might help to push forward the autism defense strategy. Unfortunately, for that to even start, someone will probably have to die first. And that’s the tragedy of murder cases. The victims so often get forgotten in the legal wrangling.

What Do YouThink?

What are your thoughts on how the legal system handles neurodivergence? Let us know in the comments below, and remember to come back here often for all your true crime news and updates. Plus, we do have a TikTok crime channel that you can follow.