Is the Twinkie Defense a MYTH?

There is nothing funny about the historical event that created the so-called “Twinkie Defense.” It involved two tragic murders and a very public conviction. The defense itself, though, is quite silly, and it is a wonder that anybody ever had the gall to try it. It is even more surprising that it basically worked. Or did it? Read on and find out how we may have all been misled about the court-related events surrounding the Twinkie Defense.

⚡ At a Glance: The “Twinkie Defense” Fact Check

The “Twinkie Defense” is one of the most misunderstood legal terms in American history. While the name suggests sugar caused a murder, the reality was a complex argument about mental health.

• The Myth: Dan White’s lawyers argued that eating too many Twinkies caused a “sugar high” that drove him to murder.
• The Reality: The defense argued that White suffered from diminished capacity due to severe depression. His switch to junk food was presented as evidence of his mental decline, not the cause of it.
• The Term’s Origin: The phrase “Twinkie Defense” was never used by the lawyers; it was coined by media reporters looking for a sensational headline.
• The Outcome: White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree murder, leading to a lighter sentence and sparking the “White Night” riots.
• Legal Legacy: The public outcry led California to pass Proposition 8 (1982), which severely restricted the “diminished capacity” defense in future trials.

In 1979, Daniel White admitted to murdering the mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone, and his supervisor, Harvey Milk. Harvey Milk was the first openly gay city official in the U.S., and his life has become a symbol of the gay movement in San Francisco. A movie about his life, simply entitled Milk was produced in 2008 and starred Sean Penn.

Twinkie Defense Claim is False

It is widely believed that during Dan White’s murder trial, his defense lawyer successfully argued that White was not responsible for his crimes since his judgment had been impaired by his consumption of Twinkies and other junk foods. This is false. It never actually happened. Let me explain this “defense” in a little more detail.

According to the myth, during the murder trial, White, a fellow city supervisor with Milk, and a former firefighter and policeman, claimed that his mental capacity had been impaired when he committed the murders, and therefore he should not be held responsible.

This mental imbalance, said he, was the result of his obsessive consumption of sugary junk food, mostly Twinkies and Cokes, but also candy bars, cupcakes, etc. White had already given a full confession, but psychiatrists convinced the jury that his sugar habit diminished his ability to premeditate. Or so the popular legend has it.

This kind of argument is known as a diminished responsibility argument, but while many of these can be quite silly, this one was seen as ridiculous. Despite this, he was found Not Guilty of first-degree murder and given a lesser sentence of only seven years, based on a conviction for manslaughter.

Dan White Became the Most Hated Man in San Francisco

The decision caused a riot in the streets of San Francisco, and White, once he was released on parole in 1984 after serving five years, was the most hated man in the city. He committed suicide on October 21, 1985.

Most of us know the basic defense here as the Insanity Defense. This is based on the concept of mens rea, or the ability to exercise proper criminal intent.

If you are not able to think rationally and understand the difference between right and wrong, you cannot be found guilty. This is the basis of the familiar not guilty by reason of insanity defense, or NGRI Defense.

During the early 1980’s, when White was imprisoned and subsequently released, many states had abolished the NGRI defense and substituted guilty, but mentally ill. The difference was that they would be civilly committed until they were cured and then would serve out their remaining time in jail.

Many states have since followed by tightening their own controls. ¹ While diminished capacity, as a defense has been challenged in many states and even abolished, the notion that spawned the so-called Twinkie Defense was always pure pseudoscience. Although children might sometimes get a little hyper or irrational after eating too much sugar, there is no scientific evidence that eating too many sweets can turn you into a psychotic killer. See also, “Is Sugar Really Addictive?”

🚨 Quick Facts: The “White Night” Riots

• Trigger: The riots were sparked on May 21, 1979, immediately following the announcement that Dan White received a lenient voluntary manslaughter conviction instead of first-degree murder.
• The Outrage: Many in San Francisco, particularly within the gay community, felt the verdict essentially “sanctioned” the murder of Harvey Milk.
• Location: Thousands of protesters marched on City Hall, leading to one of the most violent episodes in San Francisco’s history.
• Casualties & Damage: The unrest resulted in dozens of injuries to both police and protesters, as well as the burning of several police cars.
• Legal Aftermath: The intensity of the riots was a major factor in California eventually abolishing the “diminished capacity” legal defense used by White’s team.

The Twinkie Defense Myth: Blown out of Proportion

Despite all this, it should be noted that White’s case was an extremely high-profile one and heavily covered by the media, with the public hanging on every moment. The novelty of the defense caused it to receive a lot of public attention and to become part of popular culture.

But the sensational nature of the trial had to do with much more than the Twinkie Defense. Was the murder strictly about homosexual intolerance and hate? Was it just politics? Was it revenge because White felt betrayed by Milk’s decision to support something he objected to?

And what most people do not know, because of the overshadowing sensationalism of the Twinkie debacle, is that White, having been elected to his supervisor seat in 1977, had suffered financial difficulties and subsequently withdrew from the position in November, 1978. Later, he changed his mind and asked Mayor Moscone to reappoint him to his seat. The mayor, at first, offered his support, but later withdrew it. All this was boiling during the trial.

Afterward, many people in the gay community felt that the jury had basically sanctioned gay murder and that if White had only killed the mayor he would still be in jail.

The Twinkie Was a Side Character, Not the Lead

The biggest irony of the “Twinkie Defense” is that Twinkies were barely in the room. According to journalist Carol Pougash, the word “Twinkie” was mentioned exactly once during the entire trial. Junk food wasn’t a legal strategy; it was a symptom.  

The Real Legal Strategy: Diminished Capacity

White’s lead attorney, Douglas Schmidt, centered the case on White’s overall diminished mental capacity and a deep-seated struggle with depression. A psychiatrist was indeed brought in, but he didn’t argue that sugar caused the murders. Instead, he argued that White’s sudden switch from being a health-conscious fitness buff to an obsessive consumer of sugary snacks was clear evidence of a major depressive episode. Even the defense called it a “throwaway witness.”  

The Media Invented the Label

If the lawyers didn’t call it the “Twinkie Defense,” who did? The credit goes to the reporters covering the trial. The media needed a punchy, sensational label for a verdict that felt like a miscarriage of justice to the public. By branding it the “Twinkie Defense,” they turned a complex legal argument about mental health into a ridiculous story about a killer on a sugar high.

☕ Read Also: Is the McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit a Myth? Much like the “Twinkie Defense,” the famous McDonald’s hot coffee case is often cited as a “frivolous” lawsuit. However, the actual facts—including third-degree burns and a reasonable request for medical expenses—tell a very different story. Read the Full Story Here

Twinkies Were NOT Central to the Trial

But, in reality, Twinkies had very little to do with the outcome of the trial, and it was a typical diminished capacity defense that occurred. The defense never actually proposed anything like a Twinkie Defense, and their mental health defense, although it may have been fabricated, was allowed by California law at the time.

White’s extreme eating habits were mentioned as evidence of his depression since White was normally such a health-conscious man. Other aspects of White’s behavior leading up to the murders, besides his poor diet, were also focused on, such as his slovenly dress and bouts of depression.

Still, one of the defense’s expert witnesses, a psychiatrist, did mention that “food stuffs with preservatives and sugar” may “cause you to act aggressively”. However, this was nothing more than a personal theory and even the witness admitted that it has not gained acceptance, nor would it ever. ³ This remark may well have been the fuse that ignited the Twinkie bomb, but it was never part of an overall strategy to claim that sugar consumption caused White to lose control and murder two people.

The idea that the jury was heavily influenced by the junk food angle, cannot be ascertained, but is extremely unlikely. The jury heard from other experts besides the one psychiatrist who brought up junk food, reportedly Dr. Martin Blinder.

He’s Off His Rocker!

Other doctors, such as Dr. Donald Lunde and Dr. George Solomon told the jury various things about how White’s mental condition rendered him incapable of premeditating the murders or even to ‘think clearly’ at all.

The medical defense was that White was completely and utterly off his rocker and so didn’t know what he was doing at any time, having acted purely on impulse that he was not in ‘mental’ control of. This was probably junk science, but not Twinkie science.

Nevertheless, both the junk science of the so-called Twinkie Defense and the perception that the jury had minimized the seriousness of the crime because Milk was gay, led to the California voters, in 1982, almost overwhelmingly voting for a proposition, called Proposition 8, that severely limited the diminished capacity defense and the insanity defense.

Questions had already been raised about mental capacity defenses long before this, and a wave of similar reform spread to other states and Congress.

Also, we cannot discount the influence of the John Hinckley, Jr. trial of 1982. Hinckley had attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Many Americans were absolutely outraged. The issues reached Congress, and the federal statutes were amended in 1984 in the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA).

These changes in mental defense laws, which followed so closely on the heels of the White case, have caused another myth to surface on the internet, possibly resulting from a misguided statement in one book about fast food, whose particular author I shall not embarrass.

This myth is that Congress Outlawed the Twinkie Defense. Such an action in Congress would certainly lend credence to the myth of its existence! But of course, Congress did no such thing. There never was a Twinkie Defense to outlaw. The reforms were far broader and more complex than this myth suggests.

Frequently Asked Questions: The Twinkie Defense

• Was the Twinkie Defense a real legal strategy? No. The defense team never argued that Twinkies or sugar caused Dan White to commit murder. Instead, they used his sudden change in diet—from healthy eating to consuming junk food—as evidence that he was suffering from a deep clinical depression, which impaired his mental capacity.
• Did Dan White get a lighter sentence because of Twinkies? While the jury found White guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree murder, this was due to the legal doctrine of diminished capacity. The “Twinkie” aspect was a minor detail used to illustrate his mental state, but it was sensationalized by the media into a “sugar high” defense.
• Is the Twinkie Defense still legal today? No. Following the public outrage and the White Night Riots, California voters passed Proposition 8 in 1982, which severely limited the use of the “diminished capacity” defense. Many other states and the federal government followed suit by tightening laws surrounding the insanity defense.
• Who actually invented the term “Twinkie Defense”? The term was coined by news reporters covering the trial, not by the lawyers in the courtroom. It served as a punchy, cynical shorthand for a verdict that many felt was far too lenient given the gravity of the crimes.

🍗 Legal Oddity: Are “Boneless Wings” Actually Wings?

• The Ruling: In 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a restaurant cannot be held liable if a customer is injured by a bone in a “boneless wing.”
• The Logic: The court decided that “boneless” refers to a cooking style, not a guarantee of bone absence, comparing it to “chicken fingers.”
• The Impact: This case highlights how legal “common sense” in the courtroom can often differ from what a hungry diner expects on their plate.
• Read the Full Story: Can Boneless Wings Contain Bones?

📚 Further Reading: Legal Myths & Food Law

• The McDonald’s Coffee Case is Not Unique — Think the hot coffee lawsuit was a one-off? Discover why similar cases are more common—and more justified—than you’ve been led to believe.
• Is Breyers “Frozen Dairy Dessert” Legally Ice Cream? — You might be surprised to learn why some of your favorite “ice cream” brands can’t actually use that word on the label.
• Is It Illegal to Eat Food in the Store Before Paying? — We’ve all seen people snack in the aisles, but is it actually shoplifting? Explore the fine legal line between “sampling” and theft.