Senator Shanika Henson presented Senate Bill 507 on Feb. 7 as a measure to require courts, district commissioners and judges to consider a defendant’s developmental or intellectual disability — including autism spectrum diagnoses — at multiple points in the criminal process. Henson said the bill would add statutory clarity so that diagnosis-related evidence would be consistently considered during pretrial release decisions, competency evaluations and at trial where relevant.

Witnesses and advocates framed the bill as addressing inconsistent courtroom outcomes for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). Melissa Rosenberg, executive director of the Autism Society of Maryland, said the law would “permit the introduction of evidence of autism or an IDD diagnosis in criminal proceedings, ensuring these conditions are considered when making pretrial release decisions” and cited overrepresentation of autistic people in criminal-justice settings.

Parents and family members also testified; Melissa Scales Hamilton described her son’s experience in jail and said the facility did not accommodate autism-related sensory and safety needs. A public defender in the hearing described how recorded jail phone calls can be manipulated by other inmates and later used against people with IDD at trial.

Committee members asked practical and evidentiary questions. Senator Sundar asked whether the evidence was already admissible under existing rules; Henson and witnesses said the bill is intended to “open the door” and create consistency because judicial discretion produced uneven results. Practical questions focused on whether the statute would require judges to admit evidence (witnesses said the bill affirms admissibility but does not strip judges of evidence-rule discretion), and whether judges would be required to accord particular weight to that testimony.

The measure drew support from disability and legal-advocacy groups and from family members who said statutory guidance would reduce harmful, unintended outcomes for people whose behavior is driven by developmental differences rather than criminal intent. No final vote was recorded during the hearing.

Why it matters: The bill seeks to make the treatment of defendants with IDD more consistent across Maryland courts by identifying diagnosis and specialized testimony as relevant for pretrial decisions, competency questions and evidentiary considerations. The debate turned on whether explicit statutory language is necessary or whether judicial rules and case law already provide the flexibility to consider disability evidence.

Sources: Testimony at Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing, Feb. 7, 2025.