Twinkie Defence: A Legitimate Plea?
The Trial of Dan White and Junk Food-Induced Depression
Nov 18, 2008
The Twinkie defence originated and gained notoriety during the 1979 trial of former San Francisco supervisor Dan White, who killed his colleagues Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. Instead of the death penalty, however, White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, with a controversially light sentence of eight years.
A simplistic understanding of the case would be, as Carol Pogash of The San Francisco Chronicle put it, “Dan White gobbled Twinkies, which blasted sugar through his arteries and drove him into a murderous frenzy. About as simple as: Eat a Twinkie, commit a murder”. However, there is more to the case than first meets the eye.
The Twinkie Murders: Harvey Milk and George Moscone
The story begins to unravel in 1978, when 32-year old White abruptly resigned from his post. Reasons for his decision are unclear, with some speculating that White and Milk had frequent fallouts; others claiming that White had found it difficult to survive on a $9,600 annual salary as a supervisor. White himself blamed corruption within San Francisco politics.
Mayor Moscone had declared that White’s seat would still be available should he want it back. However, by the time White decided to return to politics, he was rejected, as his seat was already occupied by another liberal supervisor at the urging of Milk.
On November 27, 1978, armed with a .38 revolver, White snuck into the San Francisco City Hall. In the mayor’s office, he shot Moscone in the head and chest at close range, killing him. Over at the supervisors’ offices, Milk suffered a similar fate, being shot five times and killed by the final bullet.
The Trial of Dan White and the White Night Riots
So how exactly do Twinkies tie into this case? At the trial, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that White should not be held criminally responsible for his actions because he was suffering from depression. Formerly a fitness fanatic, he underwent a 180-degree turn since quitting his job, becoming withdrawn from his family and binging on junk food, including Twinkies and Coca-Cola. The fact that he had committed the murders was not disputed, but the defence won by argument of diminished capacity due to irregular biological factors.
Interestingly enough, chief defence attorney Douglas Schmidt has pointed out that no Twinkies were ever mentioned in the testimony – junk food was a negligible part of the defence. Blinder too is still disgusted by the trivialisation of the case, calling it “preposterous...that twelve middle class homeowner jurors would give a killer even a partial pass on the basis of what he ate the night before.”
An alternative theory was due to the fact that Milk was the first openly-gay elected official in San Francisco. This play on homophobia, as Moscone’s former press secretary Corey Busch argued, convinced conservative jurors to convict White of a less serious offence. The homosexual community was so angered by this decision, it gave rise to the infamous White Night riots where police cars, store windows and other property were smashed and set alight.
Two Sides of the Media: Sensationalisation and Homage
The story that has survived, however, is a product of what Blinder blames the media for: sensationalisation. Beneath the absurdity of the “Twinkie defence” lies a far more complex tale, and to assume a simple hypodermic needle link would be an injustice to the deaths of Moscone and Milk. On the other hand, having the catchphrase of the “Twinkie defence” keeps the case in public consciousness, aided by biopics including 1984’s The Times of Harvey Milk and 2008’s Milk, which help shed light on the assassinations.
 |
 |
