The Twinkie defence refers to a situation where a person claims that their consumption of sugary foods, such as Twinkies, led them to commit a crime. This defence was successfully used in a well-known trial in 1979, resulting in a reduced punishment for the accused. However, many view this defence as inadequate, leading to changes in the law to limit its use. The term “Twinkie defence” is now also used to describe other unusual defences presented in court.
The Twinkie defence is a legal strategy employed in criminal trials to defend a defendant using an unconventional argument. It gained prominence during the 1979 trial of Dan White, a San Francisco politician accused of first-degree murder. In this trial, a psychiatrist testified that White’s consumption of sugary foods, including Twinkies, could have impaired his mental capacity. White’s lawyer utilised this testimony to argue that he lacked the necessary premeditation and deliberation for first-degree murder. Consequently, White was convicted of the lesser offence of involuntary manslaughter. The legitimacy of Twinkie defences has been a subject of debate, leading the California legislature to amend its penal code after White’s trial, making it more difficult for subsequent defendants to rely on such defences. The term “Twinkie defence” has been applied in various contexts, including describing unconventional medical-related defences and a defendant’s right to choose their own counsel. For instance, if a person is on trial for car theft and their lawyer argues that they were sleepwalking at the time, thus absolving them of responsibility, it would be considered a Twinkie defence due to its unconventional nature and attempt to diminish the defendant’s accountability for their actions.
The Twinkie Defense refers to a legal strategy used in a criminal trial where the defendant claims diminished capacity or mental impairment due to excessive consumption of sugary foods, such as Twinkies.
Yes, the Twinkie Defense was successful in the infamous trial of Dan White, who was charged with the murder of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978. White’s defence argued that his excessive consumption of junk food, including Twinkies, contributed to his diminished mental capacity.
The Twinkie Defense is a specific legal strategy that relies on proving diminished capacity due to a specific cause, such as excessive consumption of sugary foods. It may not be applicable or successful in every criminal trial.
The Twinkie Defense is a controversial legal strategy that has been criticized by many legal experts. It is often seen as an attempt to shift blame or responsibility away from the defendant.
The Twinkie Defense is primarily associated with criminal trials, where the defendant is facing criminal charges. It is less likely to be applicable or successful in civil cases, which involve disputes between individuals or entities.
While the Twinkie Defense is the most well-known example, there have been other cases where similar arguments were made, such as the “Junk Food Defense” used in a murder trial in the United Kingdom in 2009.
No, the Twinkie Defense does not completely absolve a defendant of their actions. It is used to argue for a reduced charge or sentence based on diminished capacity, but it does not negate the fact that the defendant committed the crime.
The Twinkie Defense did not establish any significant legal precedents. It was a unique strategy used in a specific case and has not been widely replicated or accepted in subsequent trials.
The Twinkie Defense is based on the argument of diminished capacity due to excessive consumption of sugary foods. While similar arguments could potentially be made with other types of food, the specific term “Twinkie Defense” is associated with junk food.
The Twinkie Defense did not lead to any significant changes in the legal system. It remains a notable and controversial legal strategy, but it has not resulted in widespread modifications to legal principles or procedures.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 27th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/twinkie-defence/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Twinkie Defence. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 20 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/twinkie-defence/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Twinkie Defence. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/twinkie-defence/ (accessed: May 20 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Twinkie Defence. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 20 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/twinkie-defence/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts