The author examines the historical and doctrinal background of the “gay panic defense,” a variety of strategies that suggest a criminal defendant should be excused or justified if his violent actions were in response to a (homo)sexual advance. Drawing lessons from the Matthew Shepard trial, this article supports generally permitting gay panic defense arguments, since they are less harmful when made to a jury in open court than when forced underground. It proposes strategies for prosecutors to minimize homophobic juror bias and foster enlightened deliberations.

This article reviews 14 homicide cases in California from the years 1949 and 2000 that involved a “homosexual advance” defense. The author expostulates “four classic scripts of homosexuality” – the effeminate, the sick or mentally ill, sexually predatory, and violent, and considers how each figured in the homicide cases involving the homosexual advance defense. Finally, the prevalence of the four scripts in the popular press over the same time period is examined, and the author concludes that the scripts have survived longer in the legal setting than in the popular culture.