Bryan Kohberger’s defense team is leveraging his autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) diagnoses to challenge the prosecution’s case and potentially avoid the death penalty. They argue these conditions explain behaviors prosecutors might frame as evidence of guilt, such as compulsive night driving, rigid routines, or atypical social interactions. By presenting expert testimony on how ASD impacts demeanor and decision-making, the defense aims to counter claims of premeditation or malicious intent.

The strategy also targets Idaho’s death penalty eligibility. While the Supreme Court’s Atkins v. Virginia ruling bars executing individuals with intellectual disabilities, autism is not equivalent to intellectual disability. However, the defense appears to be testing whether broader neurodevelopmental conditions could similarly reduce culpability. If successful, this could pressure prosecutors to accept a life sentence plea deal instead of pursuing execution.

Critics argue this approach risks stigmatizing autism by conflating it with violence, while supporters claim it ensures fair consideration of neurological factors in sentencing. The tactic highlights growing legal debates over how mental health diagnoses should influence capital punishment cases.