QuizLaw

« The Daily Memo - 8/9/06 | Main | Hmmm…I think Wiley Miller is saying that he’s not a strict constructionist »

Twinkie Defense? What about the Cigarette-Break Defense?!

As a QuizLaw public service, several months ago we set the record straight on the McDonald’s hot-coffee ordeal, a personal injury case which, mostly through urban myth, began to typify the gross need for tort reform, even though the $2.9 million jury award in that particular case was appropriate given McDonald’s scurrilous conduct. But what of the Twinkie Defense, the legal strategy cited as an example of what’s wrong with criminal lawyers? Again, never really happened.

The actual case concerned a former city supervisor, Dan White, who broke into a city building and killed both San Francisco’s mayor and city supervisor. During White’s defense, his team of lawyers argued that he was suffering from untreated depression that diminished his capacity to tell right from wrong (and thus should not be convicted of first-degree premeditated murder). As part of his diminished capacity defense, one expert witness suggested that White, who was very health conscious, had recently turned to Twinkies and other junk food, which was alleged evidence of his depression. Of course, when White was convicted of the lesser charge, no one remembered why he ate Twinkies (because he was depressed), they only remembered that he enjoyed the soft-yellow spongy goodness, and thus the myth was born.

But while White’s case didn’t actually rely on Twinkies in an attempt to exonerate him, novel off-the-wall defenses are not always the stuff of myth. Take Philip Elmore, a Columbus, Ohio man who is facing the death penalty after beating his girlfriend to death with a lead pipe. In his death penalty appeal, Elmore’s lawyers argued that the sentencing jury was needlessly rushed to arrive at its decision. Why? Because, during deliberations, the jurors were denied a cigarette break.

The court’s justices, who are obviously all non-smokers, seemed unimpressed. But as ridiculous as it might seem, I for one wouldn’t want a group of jurors suffering from nic fits to be the ones deciding whether or not I should live or die. As anyone who has ever smoked knows, when you’re denied a cigarette break, you think everyone should die.

Posted by Dustin on August 9, 2006 | Comments (1)