Truly Sorry? Effects of Diagnostic Information on an Autistic Defendant's Perceived Remorse, Honesty, and Guilt

Nonverbal behaviors perceived as deception or lack of remorse share significant overlap with autism characteristics, possibly contributing to disproportionately negative outcomes in the criminal justice system. Disclosing an autism diagnosis during trial may help reduce bias and negative outcomes, however, research remains scarce. This study examined juror perceptions of autistic defendants using videotaped trial testimony, extending prior work.

Participants (n = 163) viewed videotaped testimony of an autistic defendant before being randomly assigned to one of three disclosure conditions (none, diagnosis only, or diagnosis and expert testimony). Participants rated the defendant's honesty, remorse, blame, and guilt and completed legal authoritarianism, autism attitudes, and autism exposure measures.

In contrast to previous findings, significant differences were not found between diagnostic disclosure type and ratings of defendant honesty, remorse, blame, or guilt when controlling for autism attitudes, autism exposure, and legal authoritarianism. Notably, floor and ceiling effects limit interpretation of these null findings, which may reflect facts of the case rather than an absence of disclosure effects. Exploratory analyses revealed participants with more prior exposure to autistic individuals and more positive autism attitudes consistently rated the defendant as more honest, less blameworthy, and less guilty, and disclosure type occasionally moderated these relationships.

Although methodological constraints limit conclusions regarding diagnostic disclosure effects, pre-existing attitudes toward autism consistently predicted juror perceptions, and expert testimony showed promise for reducing bias. These findings highlight the importance of informed disclosure strategies for legal practitioners and the need for further research on reducing bias for autistic defendants.