“Eat a Twinkie, kill a man.” This was a phrase often seen in newspapers and media during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The so-called “Twinkie Defense” is one of the most colorful myths of the criminal justice system; the misunderstood argument in Dan White's defense during his 1979 trial. This defense originated with forensic psychiatrist Martin Blinder and his expert testimony regarding White's mental state. This article will analyze Blinder's performance during the trial, from his research into White to his safe conclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay On November 27, 1978, Daniel James White was accompanied by his aide to City Hall in San Francisco, California with his . 38 in my pocket along with a handful of extra cartridges. He entered through the side window of the building, avoiding the main entrance after noticing the newly installed metal detectors. He went to Mayor George Moscoe's office and, after entering the room, shot the mayor five times. He then went to the office where he worked, reloaded the gun and asked Harvey Milk to talk to him. When Milk arrived, White shot him four times, twice in the head. White fled to St. Mary's Cathedral, called his wife and turned himself in at North Station. White was tried in San Francisco in May 1979 on two counts of first-degree murder. The jury found that White lacked the mental capacity to act with malice, convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced him to seven years in prison. The defense built its argument primarily on the doctrine of diminished capacity, a potential defense by which defendants argue that, although they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally responsible for doing so, because their mental functions were "diminished " or compromised (Pogas). One of five experienced mental health professionals working for the defense, forensic psychiatrist Martin Blinder was the primary expert responsible for testifying about White. He was questioned primarily about the defendant's mental state, remaining on the witness stand for nearly an entire day discussing and explaining his assessment of White. During this trial, he testified that in the weeks leading up to the crime, White had changed his normal work habits and abandoned his healthy diet, indulging in junk food. He explained that these activities were symptoms of depression (Snider). Blinder testified that “high-sugar food with many preservatives can trigger antisocial and even violent behavior” (Barclay). His brief mention of junk food may or may not include the name Twinkies as an example of the deterioration of White's diet, but it received a lot of media attention. The well-known satirist Paul Krassner pointed out that somehow ingesting sugar-rich foods leads to acting aggressively. This testimony was distorted by the press into what is known as the "Twinkie Defense", portraying the defense as attributing the murders to a sugar rush caused by the consumption of Twinkies. This caused outrage in the community. Newspapers across the country began using the phrase “twinkie defense” as if it were synonymous with reduced capacity (Pogash). The expression remains, to this day, a gross misnomer for the defense which led to Dan White receiving a lesser sentence than the defense was entitled to. San Francisco community believed they deserved it. At the time of the movementpro-gay in San Francisco, the ruling was believed to be based not on substantial evidence, but on the jury's homophobic beliefs. The ruling sparked the White Night Riots, a series of violent events in protest of the conviction. Blinder, however, intended to introduce junk food as a symptom of depression, rather than as a cause of mental illness or aggression. He talked about White putting aside his normal habits and becoming unkempt, quitting his job as a supervisor to start a new fast food franchise to try to support his family, and starting to see his wife less and less often because of their busy schedules. of work. Blinder's testimony, as well as testimonies from other mental health professionals, captured White's desperate downward spiral and included his bizarre nutritional deviation (Stetler). It was argued that White's ability to reflect “maturely and meaningfully” on the seriousness and wrongfulness of the crime was impaired due to his depression (Gray). In analyzing Blinder's assessment and testimony, White's background information must be considered. He grew up in a working-class family and was reportedly beaten and teased about his weight as a child, leading him to over-exercise in high school. He was married, in the periods leading up to the trial he reported that he was unable to spend much time with his wife (Barclay). He had reported “emotional and financial distress” as the reason for his resignation from his position a few days before the shooting (Gray). His move away from a healthy lifestyle and neglect of hygiene indicated a diagnosis of depression.[1] I imagine that because Blinder was hired by the defense, his evaluation and testimony were focused on symptoms supporting a diagnosis of mental illness. For this reason there are details that he did not include in his testimony that were relevant to his assessment. The prosecuting psychiatrist had examined White on the evening of the shooting and found him to be moderately depressed but without signs of clinical depression (Snider). Blinder also stated that White was so weakened by his depression that he could not premeditate his actions or reflect on the immorality of the crime. However, White had decided to visit his victims and had brought a loaded pistol with him to shoot the mayor, reloading it before looking for Supervisor Milk. These acts were signs of preparation for the crime and contradicted the ideas supporting the absence of premeditation. That's not to say that Blinder didn't do a good job. In fact, he did exactly what he was hired to do. He was hired to help the defense evaluate White's mental state, and to do so to their advantage as best he could without being dishonest or unethical in his presentation. His participation in portraying White as a victim of circumstance was one reason the jury was led to agree with the diminished capacity argument. He included information helpful to the defense and most likely instructed the attorney on what questions to ask and what to avoid. Looking at the evidence of depression under the preponderance of evidence standard, it may have been quite accurate to diagnose White with clinical depression. There is sometimes a perception that expert testimony often reflects who pays the doctor and is not an impartial assessment of the merits of a case. I believe Blinder, however, did his job by being impartial. Among the information he impartially obtained, he was able to assist defense attorney Douglas Schmit in building a defense for a man who had a serious mental disorder. qualified to do so. Blinder you are.