some people hear talk as if there were no degrees of aslergers, for example

Of course there are degrees. The person I'm talking about is far over the edge of being able to understand the basics of how normal people interact. He would never be able to figure out what was going on in a con trick, and could well miscall whether consent was given in a rape case or what options were available to a victim of domestic violence.


if he person in question has conversed with you about the trial they are in breach of the equiette surrounding trials (they could even be prosecuted themselves)

All I know is that he's been off on jury service, and the length of time implies the case is major and complicated. I'm not intending to find out any more.


There is another issue that has been underlying part of this discussion - whether people can insist on their right to serve on a jury. I would say that anybody REALLY REALLY KEEN to be on a jury ought to be disqualified - chances are they have an agenda (either hang-'em-high or free-'em-all) and the evidence will be irrelevant to the verdict they want to give. No reason to suppose that autistic people will be any keener than others, though when they are the results might not be pretty. (Of course there isn't actually any mechanism to disqualify them, in Scotland or anywhere else).