“Eat a Twinkie, kill a man.” It is a phrase often found in newspapers and media in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The so-called "Twinkie defense" is one of the most colorful myths of the system of criminal justice; the misunderstood argument of Dan White's defense at his 1979 trial. This defense comes from forensic psychiatrist Martin Blinder and his expert testimony on White's mental state. This article will analyze Blinder's performance during the trial, from his research into White to its confident conclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay On November 27, 1978, Daniel James White was led by his assistant to City Hall in San Francisco, California, carrying his. 38 in his pocket 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 he worked in, reloaded his gun and asked Harvey Milk to speak to him. When Milk arrived, White shot him four times, including twice in the head. White fled to St. Mary's Cathedral, called his wife and went to Gare du Nord. 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 maliciously, 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 even if they broke the law, they should not be held fully criminally responsible for that act because their mental functions have been “diminished” or impaired (Pogash). One of five mental health professionals working for the defense, forensic psychiatrist Martin Blinder was the lead expert assigned to testify about White. He was primarily questioned about the defendant's mental state, remaining on the stand for nearly an entire day to discuss and explain his assessment of White. During this process, he testified that in the weeks leading up to the crime, White had changed his normal work habits and abandoned his healthy diet to indulge in junk food. He explained that these activities were symptoms of depression (Snider). Blinder testified that “foods high in sugar and with lots of preservatives can precipitate antisocial and even violent behavior” (Barclay). His brief mention of junk food may or may not have included naming Twinkies as an example of White's deteriorating diet, but it received a lot of media attention. The famous satirist Paul Krassner put forward the idea that ingesting foods high in sugar leads to acting aggressively. This testimony has been 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 eating Twinkies. This caused outrage in the community. Newspapers across the country began using the phrase “twinkie defense” as if it were synonymous with diminished capacity (Pogash). The phrase remains, to this day, a highly inappropriate term for the defense that resulted in Dan White receiving a lesser sentence than the defense received. the San Francisco community believed that hedeserved. At the time of the pro-gay movement in San Francisco, they believed the sentence was based not on substantial evidence, but on the homophobic beliefs of the jury. The conviction gave rise to the White Night Riots, a series of violent events to protest the conviction. Blinder, however, wanted to present junk food as a symptom of depression, rather than the cause of mental illness or assault. He talked about White abandoning his normal habits and growing up neglected, he left his job as a supervisor to start a new franchise at Fast Good to try to support his family and began seeing his wife less less often due to their work schedules. Blinder's testimony, along with expert testimony from other mental health professionals, captured White's desperate spiral and included his strange nutritional detour (Stetler). It was argued that White's ability to reflect "maturely and meaningfully" on the seriousness and wrongfulness of the offense was impaired as a result of his depression (Gray). In analyzing Blinder's assessment and testimony, one must consider White's background information. He grew up in a working-class family and was reportedly beaten and teased about his weight as a child, leading to him overexercising in high school. He was married, and in the lead-up to the trial, he said he couldn't spend as much time with his wife (Barclay). He cited “emotional and financial distress” as the reason for resigning from his position a few days before the shooting (Gray). His digression from a healthy lifestyle and abandonment of hygiene indicated a diagnosis of depression.[1] I assume that because Blinder was hired by the defense, his assessment and testimony focused on symptoms supporting a diagnosis of mental illness. For this reason, there were details that he did not include in his testimony that were relevant to his assessment. The prosecution's psychiatrist had examined White the evening of the shooting and found him moderately depressed but without signs of clinical depression (Snider). Blinder also said White was so weakened by his depression that he could not premeditate his actions or reflect on the immorality of the offense. However, White had decided to visit his victims and took with him a loaded gun to shoot the mayor,[2] reloading before searching for Supervisor Milk. These actions are signs of preparation for the crime and contradict ideas supporting the absence of premeditation. That's not to say 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 as best he could, without being dishonest or unethical in his presentation. His participation in portraying White as a victim of circumstance partly explains why the jury was convinced to accept the diminished capacity argument. He included information useful to the defense and most likely advised the attorney on what questions to ask and what to avoid. Looking at the evidence for depression under the preponderance of evidence standard, it might have been entirely accurate to diagnose White with clinical depression. It is sometimes felt that expert testimony often reflects who pays the clinician and is not an impartial assessment of the merits of a case. I believe Blinder, however, did his job by being impartial. With the information he impartially obtained, he was able to help defense attorney Douglas Schmit.