Memorialized also by the photo on the cover of the Dead Kennedy's first album, Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables! Jello Biafra tells of someone mailing him a burnt police license plate.
EDIT IN AISLE 6!!!
Milk, a former police officer and San Francisco City Supervisor, had been charged with first-degree murder for the assassinations of San Francisco City Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk.
... emphasis mine
revolution is an idea which has fixed bayonets.
napoleon bonaparte
I know, I know, a nit-picky pedantic devil's advocate (sorry), but as I recall, the "twinkie" defense was NOT that junk food had literally impaired White's judgement, but that its consumption by someone who was apparently very well known for being a fitness and health nut was a sign of mental stress and/or diminished capacity. Still a stretch (and one I don't believe for a second), but not quite as silly as the legend contends - We now return you to normal commenting.
One paragraph says:
Milk, a former police officer and San Francisco City Supervisor, had been charged with first-degree murder for the assassinations of San Francisco City Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk.
I think that should be White, a former ...
kenga (and Sorghum) -
Yep, it's a typo.
Fixed. Thank you both.
Jamie --
Yes, the argument of the Twinkie defense was, as you can read at the link, that White had "diminished capacity."
In fact, the word "Twinkie" wasn't mentioned that often. But when it was, it was mentioned, as I say in my post, with the double-meaning, aimed at a jury which had no people of color and no homosexuals.
I believe there is no doubt -- from interviews conducted with people on the jury both immediately afterwards and many years later -- that had the jury only had Moscone's killing to consider, that White would have been convicted of first degree murder. But throw in Milk, a gay man, and suddenly it all got more complicated. While the jury denies homophobia, I have no other explanation. Normally, I'm the first person to say, "read the facts of the case, and don't judge unless you've read the facts of the case yourself."
I have read the facts of the case. The prosecution met its burden. There was no reasonable doubt. There was only homophobia in a clear-cut premeditated double murder, confused by a well-done (props to the defense) defense which used homophobia to wink at the conservative jury to get their guy off, using a diminished capacity defense.
A defense attorney owes her or his client, their best efforts, and Dan White certainly got the best efforts of his defense team that year. It was an inspired defense, which led in the following year to the changing of the law in California on diminished capacity -- which I believe, to have been wrong; I do not believe the law should have been changed.
But then, I'm an enormous fan of criminal defense attorneys. They have one of those jobs people fail to truly appreciate till you need one. *laughs* Furthermore, the State has such enormous power to prosecute and charge. I'm all for keeping laws in place which give defense teams opportunities to make clear to juries and judges, as a matter of law how it is that what appeared to be a crime, in fact, was not.
Jesse, just wanted to note I agree completely with your view of the case - the manslaughter verdict was a sad joke - I just worry sometimes the shorthand we all use ("Twinkie defense? Well sure, Ding Dongs made me trash that copier at work and run naked up the street!") enters the vernacular and diminshes the work of people on both sides of the aisle. See the details of the Stella Liebeck coffee burning incident at Mickey D's vs. the urban legends, for instance.
Jamie --
Couldn't agree with you more.
It's why I'm such a stickler in these legal cases -- usually -- for explaining the law, and for siding with LAW and The Courts over the madness of the crowds and the legislators.
This is why we have a Constitution (and defense attorneys.) To protect each of us from the insanity of the moment, and from prosecutors who have crossed the line in response to everything from political pressures to whatever.
Yet. Rarely. A case comes along where it is the jury and the Court which screws the pooch, which crosses the line.
This was one such case. I say this, as someone who has read the law, studied the transcript, and knows what happened.
This was homophobia. The jury let White walk because Milk was gay.
Can I prove it? No -- no one except that jury can, and I expect them to continue denying their lies till they die.
But this is what I believe, strongly. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commenting by HaloScan
