Quick Facts
A: A Michigan judge, Robert Giles, was involved in the handling of a teenage defendant with autism in a manner that raised serious concerns about how neurodivergence and mental health are understood and accommodated in court proceedings.
A: No. Advocates and court observers have long documented that Michigan courts frequently lack adequate training to properly handle neurodivergent defendants, particularly youth.
A: Neurodivergent defendants may process language, authority, stress, and instructions differently. When courts fail to account for that, proceedings can become coercive, punitive, or fundamentally unfair.
A: Michigan does not require comprehensive, enforceable training for judges on autism, neurodivergence, or mental health, despite the predictable presence of such defendants in criminal and juvenile courts.
Just the Facts
In October 2025, Judge Robert Giles, Wayne County, presided over a matter involving a teenage defendant diagnosed with autism. Public reporting and advocacy around the case raised concerns about how the court interpreted the teen’s behavior, responses, and capacity, and whether appropriate accommodations or understanding were applied.
The issue was not the diagnosis itself.
It was how the court responded to it.
What followed became emblematic of a broader, well-documented problem in Michigan’s justice system: judges are routinely expected to preside over neurodivergent and mentally ill defendants without adequate training, guidance, or safeguards.
Autism Is Not Defiance, and Confusion Is Not Contempt
Autism affects communication, sensory processing, emotional regulation, and response to authority. In a courtroom, those differences matter.
Common autistic traits can include:
- delayed or atypical responses to questions
- limited eye contact
- flat affect or unexpected emotional reactions
- difficulty processing rapid instructions
- heightened stress responses under pressure
When courts interpret these traits through a disciplinary or behavioral lens, they risk mislabeling disability as disrespect, manipulation, or noncompliance.
That is not a hypothetical risk. It is a documented pattern.
In cases involving Judge Giles, advocates argue that behavior consistent with autism was treated as willful misconduct, rather than a signal that accommodations or modified communication were necessary. Whether or not harm was intended, the outcome reflects a system unprepared to handle neurodivergence safely.
Michigan’s Training Gap Is Structural, Not Accidental
Michigan judges are unfortunately not required to undergo robust, standardized training on:
- autism spectrum disorders
- neurodivergence more broadly
- trauma-informed courtroom practices
- youth cognitive development
- mental health crisis response
Some optional education exists, and that is not enough.
Neurodivergent defendants, especially minors, appear in court every day. Treating disability competency as elective rather than essential creates predictable harm.
This is not about singling out one judge. It is about a system that places enormous discretionary power in the hands of officials who may lack the tools to exercise that power safely.
Juvenile Defendants Face the Highest Risk
When the defendant is a teenager, the danger compounds, because youth with autism are:
- more likely to misunderstand authority
- more likely to comply falsely under pressure
- less able to advocate for themselves
- more vulnerable to escalation when overstimulated
In juvenile cases, judges often control detention, probation conditions, and compliance determinations. Without disability-informed practice, those decisions can become punitive rather than rehabilitative, and corrective rather than protective.
That is a due process failure.
This Is a Civil Rights Issue, Not a Courtesy Issue
Disability accommodations are not optional kindnesses. They are legal and ethical obligations grounded in civil rights law and constitutional fairness.
When courts fail to recognize neurodivergence:
- defendants may be punished for symptoms
- proceedings may become coercive
- outcomes may reflect misunderstanding rather than culpability
The result is a justice system that appears neutral but operates inequitably.
Prosecutorial Failure Is Part of This Story
This failure does not rest with the bench alone.
Prosecutors play a central role in shaping how neurodivergent individuals are treated in the justice system, and when they lack protocols for identifying, accommodating, and adapting to autism and other forms of neurodivergence, they are not advocating effectively. They are compounding harm.
Prosecutors decide how cases are charged, how witnesses are examined, what behaviors are framed as credibility issues, and whether disability is treated as context or ignored entirely. When a prosecutor proceeds as if all defendants and victims process stress, authority, and communication in the same way, the courtroom becomes structurally hostile to neurodivergent people.
That is not neutrality. It is neglect.
An adversarial system cannot function fairly if one side is allowed to operate without adapting to known disabilities. Prosecutorial offices should have clear processes for recognizing neurodivergence, consulting experts when necessary, adjusting examination strategies, and ensuring that disability is neither weaponized nor dismissed. When they do not, they leave judges to interpret behavior without adequate context and place neurodivergent individuals at disproportionate risk.
In that sense, what happened here reflects a broader institutional breakdown. Judges without training, Prosecutors without solid protocols, and defendants or victims with autism caught in the middle.
When neither side adapts, the entire system fails; not incidentally, but absolutely predictably.
Why This Case Matters
This case, unfortunately, is not notable because it is rare. It is notable because it is all too familiar. Across Michigan, families, advocates, and defense attorneys report the same pattern:
- judges misreading neurodivergent behavior
- escalation instead of accommodation
- punishment instead of understanding
- prosecutors failing to advocate for neurodivergent individuals
Until Michigan treats disability competence as a core judicial qualification rather than an optional skill, these cases will keep happening, and the harm will keep being framed as individual misfortune rather than institutional failure.
The Verdict
Courts cannot dispense justice they do not understand.
When judges lack training in neurodivergence and mental health, the courtroom becomes a dangerous place for defendants who already face disproportionate risk. The solution is not silence, and it is not case-by-case damage control.
It is mandatory training, enforceable standards, and accountability that recognizes disability as central to due process, not peripheral to it.
Michigan can do better. But only if it stops pretending this is a niche problem.
