Doctors filed amicus briefs saying SBF's neurological differentiation caused it to be "misunderstood" at trial

Eight physicians specializing in the field of neurodifferentiation told the Second Circuit in a recent amicus brief in favor of SBF that SBF's diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) "posed serious challenges in the course of the proceedings in this case," and that the court and jury may have misunderstood SBF's conduct during the criminal trial.
They said there were several rulings against SBF "because of his neurological differentiation," notably the Manhattan District Court ruling that government prosecutors could cross-examine him without a jury before he sat in front of them. The verdict "has potentially far-reaching implications" because "the judge repeatedly criticized SBF for his lengthy responses, as well as attempts to clarify or reformulate questions," which doctors say is characteristic of people with autism spectrum disorder because the way they understand language is literal. They also said the judge's rebuke later caused SBF to alter his responses before a jury, "possibly over-corrected."