The gay and trans panic defense is a long-standing legal strategy that “heterosexual” men have employed in criminal courtrooms to excuse or justify lethal violence against gay men or transgender women. While studies have investigated this defense for 35 years, research has yet to analyze a large sample of gay and trans panic defense court outcomes. This study addresses this gap by conducting a descriptive and bivariate analysis of 587 defendants who raised panic defenses in homicide cases within the United States from 1970 to 2023. Specifically, this work analyzed the gay and trans panic defense, as well as individual, situational, and legal variables, across four criminal court outcomes: dismissal of charges versus prosecution, plea bargain versus continue to trial, acquittal versus conviction, and leniency versus conviction on the original charge(s). Drawing on research on homicide case processing and focal concerns theory, this work explores whether court outcomes align with variables suggestive of defendant/victim culpability. This study found no statistical association between lenient court convictions and victim gender. However, bivariate analysis found that lenient convictions were associated with defendants who negotiated plea bargains, raised self-defense claims for trial, and utilized legal counsel who criminalized the victim’s sexual orientation or gender.
AndresenW. C. (2024). The gay and trans panic defense: Focusing on the homicides, not the court room strategy. Homicide Studies, 28(3), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679231217112
5.
BaumerE. P.MessnerS. F.FelsonR. B. (2000). The role of victim characteristics in the disposition of murder cases. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000096331
6.
BeauchampT. (2019). Going stealth: Transgender politics and US surveillance practices. Duke University Press.
BrightmanS.LenningE.LurieK. J.DeJongC. (2024). Anti-transgender ideology, laws, and homicide: An analysis of the trifecta of Violence. Homicide Studies, 28(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679231201803
ChenC. P. L. (2000). Provocation’s privileged desire: The provocation doctrine, homosexual panic, and the non-violent unwanted sexual advance defense. Cornell Journal & Public Policy, 10(1), 195–235. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol10/iss1/8
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
14.
DresslerJ. (1995). When “Heterosexual” men kill “Homosexual” men: Reflections on provocation law, sexual advances, and the “Reasonable man” starndard. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(3), 726–763.
15.
FarrellA.GivelberD. (2010). Liberation reconsidered: understanding why judges and juries disagree about guilt. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(4), 1549–1586. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25766129
16.
FarrellR. A.SwigertV. L. (1986). Adjudication in homicide: An interpretive analysis of the effects of defendant and victim social characteristics. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23(4), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427886023004003
GouletteN. (2021). Is chivalry dead?: An examination of charge reductions in one Ohio jurisdiction. Women & Criminal Justice, 31(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2020.1753141
20.
GruenewaldJ.KleinB. R.HayesB. E.ParkinW. S.JuneT. (2024). Examining disparities in case dispositions and sentencing outcomes for domestic violent extremists in the United States. Crime and Delinquency, 70(1), 126–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221109769
21.
Harvard Law Review. (1989). Developments in the law: Sexual Orientation and the Law. Harvard Law Review, 102(7), 1508–1671. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341338
KiddJ. D.WittenT. (2007). Transgender and transsexual identities: The Next Strange Fruit—hate crimes, violence and genocide against the Global trans-Communities. Journal of Hate Studies, 6(1), 31–63.
26.
KohnS. (2001). Greasing the wheel: How the Criminal Justice System hurts Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people and why hate crime laws won’t Save Them. New York University Review Law & Social Change, 27(2–3), 257–280.
27.
KopaczP.Juźwik-KopaczE.BolechałaF.StronaM.KonopkaT. (2023). Overkilling: A specific type of homicide - constructing the definition: Perpetrator, weapon and circumstances. Legal Medicine, 64(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2023.102273
28.
KrausS. W.RagatzL. L. (2011). Gender, jury instructions, and homophobia: What influence do these factors have on legal decision making in a homicide case where the defendant used the homosexual panic defense?Criminal Law Bulletin, 47, 237–256.
29.
LantzB.FaulknerL.MillsJ. M. (2024). A descriptive account of the nature and extent of transgender homicide in America, 2010 to 2021. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(1-2), 341–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231197139
30.
LantzB.MillsJ. M.FaulknerL.WengerM. R. (2025). Deadnamed and denied justice: The role of deadnaming and other factors in transgender homicide clearance. Homicide Studies, 29(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679241294085
MichalskiN. D.BitterA. N.NuñezN. (2022). “Trans folks are in the crosshairs”: Jury decision-making and the trans panic defense. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), n22453–n22474.
37.
MichalskiN. D.NunezN. (2022). When is “gay panic” accepted? Exploring juror characteristics and case type as predictors of a successful gay panic defense. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 782–803.
38.
MogulJ. L. (2005). The dykier, the butcher, the better: The state’s use of homophobia and sexism to execute women in the United States. New York City Law Review, 8(2), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.31641/clr080221
39.
MogulJ. L.RitchieA. J.WhitlockK. (2011). Queer (in)justice : The criminalization of LGBT people in the United States. Beacon Press.
40.
MomenR. E.DilksL. M. (2021). Examining case outcomes in U.S. transgender homicides: An exploratory investigation of the intersectionality of victim characteristics. Sociological Spectrum, 41(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2020.1850379
41.
PanterH.FarrellA. (2025). Overkill and antemortem facial injuries in U.S. transgender and gender non-conforming homicides (2013–2023). Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 22(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.70003
42.
ParkinW. S.GruenewaldJ. (2017). Open-source data and the study of homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(18), 2693–2723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515596145
43.
PhillipsS. (2009). Legal disparities in the capital of capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 717–756.
44.
PhillipsS.MarceauJ.KaminS.KingN. (2024). Sacred victim: Fifty years of data on victim race and sex as predictors of execution. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 114(2), 67–112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48785846
45.
PizarroJ. M.ZgobaK. M.SalernoL. M.CircoG. (2020). The processing of homicides in the courts: An examination of multiple case outcomes. Race and Justice, 10(4), 400–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368718759401
RagatzL. L.RussellB. (2010). Sex, sexual orientation, and sexism: What influence do these factors have on verdicts in a crime-of-passion case?Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366677
48.
Romain DagenhardtD. M.HeidemanA. J.FreiburgerT. L. (2022). An examination of the direct and interactive effects of race/ethnicity and gender on charge reduction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(3), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2021.1936123
49.
SalernoJ. M.NajdowskiC. J.BottomsB. L.HarringtonE.KemnerG.DaveR. (2015). Excusing murder? Conservative jurors’ acceptance of the gay-panic defense. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 21(1), 24–34. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3198822
50.
ShatzS. F.ShatzN. R. (2011). Chivalry is not dead: Murder, gender, and the death penalty. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 27(1), 64–112. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1767508
51.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x
52.
StotzerR. L. (2008). Gender identity and hate crimes: Violence against transgender people in Los Angeles County. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(1), 43–52.
53.
StraderJ. K.SelvinM.HayL. (2015). Gay panic, gay victims, and the case for gay shield laws. Cardozo Law Review, 36, 1473–1531. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2602493
TomeiJ.CramerR. J.BoccacciniM. T.PanzaN. R. (2020). The gay panic defense: Legal defense strategy or reinforcement of homophobia in court?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 4239–4261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517713713
56.
VidmarN. (2001). A historical and comparative perspective on the common law jury. World Jury Systems. Oxford University Press.
57.
WallB. W. (2000). Criminal responsibility, diminished capacity, and the gay panic defense. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28(4), 454–459.
WoodsJ. B. (2020). Framing legislation banning the ‘gay and trans panic’ defenses. University of Richmond Law Review, 54, 833–876. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3734690
