>A theory going around a few weeks ago about his apparent "inability" to STFU is that his defence will be that he was affected by ADHD meds that impaired his judgement and made him impulsive, and have continued to do so even post collapse. I doubt lawyers could come up with anything better than this, really.

Doesn't seem far fetched honestly. He really reminds me people who took one too many adderall doses and suddenly think everything is a great idea.

Does establishing impaired judgement due to ADHD meds require that he demonstrate continued impaired judgement regarding the specifics of the case? Can’t he just buy every old GameCube game that comes to mind on eBay and live bet the Las Vegas Raiders like the rest of us? “My client can’t possibly be guilty. He spent $80 dollars on a complete in box copy of Luigi’s Mansion and didn’t play past the first boss.”

Do ADHD meds differ from, say, alcohol from a legal perspective? My understanding is that being drunk is never a defense. The meds are something he chooses to consume as an adult so it seems like he should be compared to an unmedicated standard. But IANAL.