- Bryan Kohberger’s autism diagnosis does not exempt him from the death penalty in the murder case of four University of Idaho students.
- The defense argues autism reduces his culpability, but the judge disagreed, citing legal standards on intellectual disability.
- Key evidence, including 911 calls and text messages from surviving roommates, will be allowed in Kohberger’s upcoming trial
A judge ruled that Bryan Kohberger could still face the death penalty if convicted of murdering four University of Idaho students. This is despite his recent autism diagnosis. His defense team argued that his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) should prevent such a sentence. The case revolves around the stabbing deaths of four students. Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves were killed at a rental home near the University of Idaho campus. The attack occurred on November 13, 2022, in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger, 30, faces charges related to these murders. The prosecution has expressed its intent to pursue the death penalty if Kohberger is convicted. His trial is scheduled to begin in August 2025.
Defense Claims Autism Should Exclude Death Penalty
Kohberger’s defense team filed motions requesting the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment. They argued that his autism diagnosis lessens his culpability. The defense claimed that executing someone with autism would violate the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. They also argued that the death penalty would not serve the intended purposes of retribution or deterrence in Kohberger’s case. The defense further suggested that his condition makes him particularly vulnerable to wrongful conviction and a potential death sentence.
Prosecution Argues Autism Does Not Prevent Death Penalty
The prosecution responded by arguing that, according to U.S. Supreme Court precedent states that the death penalty applies only in cases involving intellectual disabilities. Prosecutors pointed out that Kohberger’s autism diagnosis is mild and does not include intellectual impairment. Therefore, they argued that the death penalty should still be an option. The prosecutors emphasized that the law specifically excludes only individuals with intellectual disabilities from facing execution.
Judge Agrees with Prosecution’s Argument
Judge Steven Hippler agreed with the prosecution’s argument, stating that Kohberger’s autism diagnosis does not meet the criteria for exempting him from the death penalty. The judge wrote that autism differs from an intellectual disability, so Kohberger is not automatically exempt from the death penalty. He also noted that no national consensus opposes applying the death penalty to individuals with autism. However, the judge clarified that autism could be considered a mitigating factor during sentencing, weighing it against other factors. This means that while autism does not disqualify Kohberger from the death penalty, it could influence the final decision on his punishment.
Kohberger’s Background and Arrest
Bryan Kohberger was a criminal justice graduate student at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, at the time of the murders. Pullman is located just 10 miles from Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger was arrested in Pennsylvania several weeks after the killings. Authorities used DNA evidence to connect him to the crime scene. They found his genetic material on a knife sheath left at the location. The evidence against Kohberger has been a key part of the case. The prosecution aims to prove his involvement in the murders during the upcoming trial.
Victims and Details of the Crime
The four victims, all University of Idaho students, were likely asleep during the attack. Autopsies showed they were each stabbed multiple times, with some showing signs of defensive wounds. The brutal nature of the crime shocked the community, and the surviving roommates who were in the house at the time have been key witnesses. They reportedly discovered one of their roommates unresponsive hours after the killings and called 911. This call, along with other evidence, will play an important role in the trial.
Bryan Kohberger Autism Diagnosis and Legal Implications
After Kohberger’s arrest, his defense team arranged for a psychological evaluation. Dr. Rachel Orr, a clinical neuropsychologist, diagnosed him with “Autism Spectrum Disorder, level 1,” which does not involve intellectual or language impairment. Despite this diagnosis, the judge ruled that Kohberger’s autism is not enough to exclude him from the death penalty. This ruling follows previous legal standards that have held autism alone does not qualify as a mental disability that prevents capital punishment.
Evidence Allowed in the Trial
In another key ruling, the judge determined that jurors will likely hear the 911 call made by two surviving roommates after they realized one of their friends was unresponsive. The call, made about eight hours after the murders, will be a significant part of the prosecution’s case. However, statements made during the call by an unidentified woman will be excluded from the trial. This woman had relayed information she did not personally witness, which the judge ruled inadmissible. Additionally, the court will allow the surviving roommates’ text messages from around the time of the attack as evidence, provided that prosecutors establish the foundation for their inclusion. One message reportedly describes seeing a masked man in the house after the killings.
What’s Next
As Kohberger’s trial approaches in August, the legal challenges surrounding his case continue to unfold. The judge’s decision allows the death penalty to remain a potential outcome if Kohberger is convicted, despite his autism diagnosis. The case has attracted significant attention due to the nature of the crime and the legal arguments surrounding Kohberger’s mental health. With several important rulings already made, including the decision to allow key evidence, the trial promises to be a complex and highly watched legal battle. As the proceedings continue, more questions will likely arise, and the case will remain a focal point for both the legal community and the public.
