The "Twinkie Defense" refers to a legal argument that was used during the 1979 trial of Dan White for the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. The term is often used derisively (and incorrectly) in reference to any criminal defense theory that seems absurd.
Unfortunately, some lazy reporting by members of the news media at the time completely misrepresented the defendant's actual argument. That shoddy journalism led to some widespread misunderstanding that persists to the present. Today, the term seems to be misused in popular culture much more often than it is used correctly. In reality, the argument was a sound legal defense and not nearly as ridiculous as it came to be understood. Let me explain.
Dan White had been a San Francisco police officer and firefighter. In 1977, he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Over the following year, a deep political rift arose between him and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk, which ultimately led White to resign from his position. Shortly after tendering his official resignation, White attempted to rescind it and to rejoin the Board. Milk lobbied against his reinstatement and successfully convinced Mayor Moscone to appoint a more liberal political ally to the vacant seat.
On November 27, 1978, White arrived at San Francisco City Hall with a .38 caliber revolver. He climbed through an open window to elude metal detectors at the building's entrance and proceeded to Moscone's office, where he demanded a meeting with the mayor. Following a verbal argument, White shot Moscone several times, reloaded, and quickly left. White then encountered Harvey Milk in a hallway. He asked Milk to step inside his former office, where he shot and killed the supervisor. White escaped from City Hall, but later turned himself in at a local precinct.
Dan White was charged with 2 counts of premeditated murder. At trial, the prosecutor presented evidence to support the allegation that the murders were carefully planned, including the fact that White had the presence of mind to climb through a window rather than submit to security screening at the building's entrance.
In his defense, attorneys argued that White suffered from severe depression, leading to a state of "diminished capacity". They told the jury that White's mental illness rendered him unable to form the "premeditation" required for a 1st-degree murder conviction. As proof of his depression, attorneys presented evidence of extreme behavioral changes that White had undergone shortly before the murders. Previously, White had been described as a "fitness nut", who exercised regularly and adhered to a strict diet of healthy food. In the weeks leading up to the shootings, though, White's hygiene had deteriorated, he had become alienated from his wife, and he had begun consuming junk food and sugary drinks. These things were all considered to be out of character for him. At trial, psychiatrists described those severe behavioral changes as symptoms of White's depression, not the cause of it. Nobody argued that Twinkies made him insane -- they argued that White was insane, and that his uncharacteristic consumption of junk food was proof that he had temporarily lost his ability to think clearly and to understand the nature of his actions.
Jurors agreed with the arguments of White's defense counsel and returned verdicts of "voluntary manslaughter" rather than 1st-degree murder. Public outrage over the verdicts led to riots and some significant changes to California law. Today, the argument of "diminished capacity" has been abolished in California courts and replaced with the doctrine of "diminished actuality". Defendants can no longer argue that some mental illness rendered them unable to form criminal intent. Instead, they must prove that they actually did not form the requisite intent due to some mental illness. The distinction is subtle but it has had a huge impact on the way that these types of cases are litigated today.
Irresponsible members of the news media fed into the public outrage by grossly misrepresenting White's actual argument. As the story was falsely relayed by several outlets, Dan White had escaped justice by speciously arguing that he was "high" on Twinkies at the time of the killings, or that his excessive consumption of sugar had somehow rendered him "temporarily insane". Sensational but inaccurate stories made national headlines and perpetuated the myth of the "Twinkie Defense" as it persists in popular culture today.
If you or a loved one has questions about "diminished capacity / actuality" or "insanity" in California, or if you just want to talk about the "Twinkie Defense", call our office for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John. We have extensive experience defending against all types of criminal charges in Southern California, including cases where the defendant's competency or mental health may be at issue.
Thanks for reading.
Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment