People v. White

Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant
Daniel James White
Plaintiff's Claim
That the murders committed by White were premeditated.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff
Thomas F. Norman
Chief Lawyers for Defendant
Douglas Schmidt, Stephen Scherr
Judge
Walter F. Calcagno
Place
San Francisco, California
Date of Decision
21 May 1979
Decision
Guilty of voluntary manslaughter; sentenced to seven years and eight months in prison.
Significance
Celebrity murder trials inevitably attract massive media coverage. What madethe Dan White case unique was the volatile mix of politics, revenge, and homosexual intolerance. Many wondered if that intolerance spilled over into the jury room.
On 27 November 1978, 32-year-old Dan White entered the San Francisco City Hall by crawling in through a basement window. He adopted this unorthodox meansof access to avoid negotiating a metal detector in the main entrance, for reasons which would soon become clear. Once inside, White breezed through the familiar corridors of power. He was on a retrieval mission. Earlier that summer, this ambitious young politician had impetuously resigned his post as a citysupervisor, citing financial difficulties; now he wanted that job back. Onlyone man could make that possible: Mayor George Moscone. White reached Moscone's office and was invited in.
The two men argued for several minutes. As the exchange heated up, Moscone made it plain that he had no intention of reappointing White, who had become apolitical liability, whereupon White drew a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver that had been tucked into his belt and pumped four bullets into his former boss. After reloading, White hunted down longtime political foe Harvey Milk, another city supervisor. Five shots ended Milk's life. White ran from thebuilding, only to surrender to the authorities one hour later.
Police guarded White closely, fearing possible retaliation. They had good cause for concern. Milk, one of San Francisco's most militant gay activists, hadmany supporters, all of whom loathed White and the homophobic attitudes he had espoused when in office. Anything was possible in such a volatile situation.
Double Execution
Prosecutor Thomas Norman sought to diffuse some of that volatility with a calm, orderly representation of the facts when the state opened its case againstDan White on 1 May 1979. He described in simple terms what amounted to a double execution, carried out deliberately and with malice aforethought. It was,he said, a crime deserving of death in the gas chamber.
Few could have envied Douglas Schmidt's task when he rose to make the openingstatement on White's behalf; after all, he was representing an admitted double assassin. However, he soon went on the offensive. In a fine speech he skillfully diverted the jury's attention away from the crime itself and onto theemotional traumas that White had undergone since relinquishing his position as city supervisor. "Good people, fine people, with fine backgrounds, simply don't kill people in cold blood," said Schmidt, "it just doesn't happen, and obviously some part of him has not been presented thus far." Schmidt claimed that White's crimes had been the product of manic depression, "a vile biochemical change" over which the defendant had no control. As added insurance, justin case this line of reasoning failed to sway the jury, Schmidt rounded outhis opening with some very pointed comparisons between Milk's overtly homosexual lifestyle and White's all-American background.
The prosecution responded with a parade of witnesses, each of whom recountedevents leading up to and on the fateful day at city hall. Chief among them was recently elected San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. Mayor Feinstein detailed White's frustration with the political system, his inability to make a difference, as a major source of his discontent. Schmidt scored heavily on cross-examination when he asked, "Would it be your opinion that the man you knew[White] was the type of man who would have shot two people?" Over strenuousstate objections, she was allowed to respond. "No," she said. "It would not."
At this point the prosecution began to unravel. What was supposed to be the high-water mark of their case--a taped confession made by White within hours of the shooting--turned into disaster. The tape should have sealed his fate. It did no such thing. Jurors heard him whine: "Well, it's just that I've beenunder an awful lot of pressure lately, financial pressure, because of my jobsituation, family pressure . . . because of not being able to have time withmy family." The killings were hardly mentioned at all, and White's only display of remorse came when describing his own predicament. And yet, several jurors wept openly as they listened to the story of a man pushed beyond his endurance. Prosecutor Norman could not believe the evidence of his own eyes and ears--Dan White had been turned into a martyr, an object of sympathy.
Unique Defense
Schmidt capitalized on what had been a lackluster prosecution by turning thetrial into an examination of White's mental state. Several psychiatrists testified that the defendant had not really meant to commit murder but had been driven to it by factors beyond his control. Much was made of White's prodigious intake of junk food and candy--what came to be known as the "Twinkies Defense"--in which an abnormally high blood sugar count was blamed for the mayhemthat he had wrought. It was a novel but effective defense.
But most effective of all were Schmidt's repeated portrayals of White as an upstanding young man, an ex-fireman and ex-police officer, someone who had been defeated by a corrupt system he was powerless to change. Schmidt cunninglymarshaled public resentment against both politicians and homosexuals into oneneat package. He found nothing unusual in the fact that White was carrying agun on the fateful day (As an ex-cop, nothing could have been more natural),or that he had crawled in through a window at city hall to, as one psychiatrist stated, avoid "embarrassing the officer at the metal detector." Dan White, Schmidt said, was acting under an "irresistible impulse to kill," and as such, under California law, was entitled to a verdict of manslaughter.
The jury agreed. On 21 May 1979 they returned two verdicts of voluntary manslaughter. Judge Walter Calcagno handed down the maximum sentence, seven years,and eight months imprisonment. With time off for good behavior, Dan White was looking at freedom in five years.
When news of the verdicts hit the streets, an already incendiary situation exploded. Five thousand gays marched on city hall to protest, and a full-scaleriot ensued. Inside the jail, the target of their rage, Dan White, lay on hiscell cot, ears plugged against the bedlam.
Over concerted gay protests, White was paroled in 1984. But liberty proved even more onerous than incarceration. Plagued by demons that just wouldn't leave him alone, on 21 October 1985, Dan White wrote the final chapter in this tragedy by committing suicide.
The Dan White trial became a rallying call for homosexuals all across America. In their eyes, the jury had semiofficially sanctioned gay murder. Overlooked was the fact that George Moscone was a happily married family man. It is difficult to dispute their firmly held belief that had White killed Moscone alone, he probably would still be behind bars.
The Blame Game
"The Blame Game" is played by many criminal defendants, and many legal observers believe that the game has spun out of control. Defendants have a right topresent arguments in their defense, but some claim that the right is being abused to the detriment of justice.
The first great example of the Blame Game was the Twinkie Defense asserted bymanslaughter defendant Daniel White in 1979. What followed has been called "The Abuse Excuse" by legal analysts. Essentially, criminal defendants are asking to be found not guilty, or to have their sentences or charges reduced, based on problems in their past or their own personal shortcomings. With the rise of expert testimony and advances in the psychological and medical disciplines, defendants have more arguments at their disposal than ever before. Somearguments may be more legitimate than others. Women have laid claim to "premenstrual stress" syndrome and men and women alike have defended criminal charges on the basis of "battered person" syndrome. If a criminal defendant suffered any abuse as a child, it is likely that this fact will be presented at trial as mitigating circumstances.
Sources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 7. Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing, 1998.