In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old college student, was violently beaten and left to die by the side of a road near Laramie, Wyo. Rescuers took him to a hospital where he died six days later from profound injuries.
The two suspects in the attack were arrested and charged with first-degree murder.
The defense lawyer claimed that one of the attackers was driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances from Shepard.
This is known as the gay and trans panic defense. This legal argument asks a jury to rule that a same-gender sexual advance is a sufficient provocation to excuse a defendant's violent reaction, even murder. It is not a free-standing defense to criminal liability but a legal tactic to support other defenses.
The two perpetrators were convicted and are serving two consecutive life sentences. But the gay and trans panic defense gained notoriety — and popularity. It has been used in hundreds of cases across the country to defend people accused of attacking and even murdering lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
The panic defense is used in three ways to reduce a murder charge of to lesser charges of manslaughter or justified homicide.
The insanity or diminished capacity defense: The victim's sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for triggering the defendant's panic reaction.
The provocation defense: The victim's "nonviolent sexual advance" induces the defendant to kill them, behavior which is not illegal or harmful but is only considered "provocative" when it comes from an LGBT person.