I believe Ethan Couch will struggle to successfully assert any defenses at trial. This controversial argument is about his wealthy upbringing impaired his ability to understand right from wrong, but it has been met with significant public backlash and skepticism from legal experts. Most people argue that privilege should not excuse criminal behavior, especially in a case resulting in the deaths of four people. The courts typically look for solid evidence to support defenses, and the "Affluenza" concept lacks any actual credibility, which could further diminish its chances of defense. Given the outrage surrounding Couch's actions and the implications of wealth on accountability, I think jurors will be unlikely to accept a defense that seems to exploit his privilege