The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- The 2013 ABA policy is often discussed as a resolution about gay and trans panic
- The resolution used the term defense to describe a specific kind of argument
- The resolution focused on bias and how it can influence jury decision making
- The policy language addressed provocation and mitigation concepts without changing any single law
- Different court systems may treat similar arguments in different ways
- Case level rulings can affect what a jury hears and what a later court reviews
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal and state: In August 2013, the ABA House of Delegates adopted Resolution 113A addressing gay and trans panic defense arguments.
- Federal and state: Resolution 113A described these arguments as strategies that seek to partially or completely excuse violent crimes by blaming a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Federal and state: The resolution urged federal, tribal, state, local, and territorial governments to take legislative action aimed at curtailing the availability and effectiveness of these arguments.
- Federal and state: One recommendation involved jury instructions, upon the request of a party, telling jurors not to let bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender identity influence their decisions.
- Federal and state: Another recommendation stated that a non-violent sexual advance or the discovery of a person’s sex or gender identity does not constitute legally adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter.
- Federal and state: The resolution also addressed mitigation for non-capital crimes by recommending limits on using these arguments to reduce the severity of charges.
- Federal and state: ABA Journal reported that the ABA House of Delegates passed the resolution unanimously at the ABA Annual Meeting in 2013.
- Federal and state: ABA publications have described gay and trans panic as litigation tactics that are often raised alongside traditional doctrines such as provocation, self-defense, or mental-state claims.
The 2013 ABA policy is often discussed as a resolution about gay and trans panic
In August 2013, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted a policy resolution that addressed what are commonly called the gay panic defense and trans panic defense in criminal cases.
The resolution used the term defense to describe a specific kind of argument
Resolution 113A described these defenses as strategies that seek to partially or completely excuse crimes such as murder and assault by claiming that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity is to blame for the defendant’s violent reaction.
The ABA has also discussed gay and trans panic as tactics raised in court, rather than as a single, standalone defense label that appears in the same way in every jurisdiction.
The resolution focused on bias and how it can influence jury decision making
One part of the policy language addressed jury decision making and bias, using wording that referred to bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion tied to sexual orientation or gender identity.
The policy language addressed provocation and mitigation concepts without changing any single law
The resolution included a recommendation that neither a non-violent sexual advance nor the discovery of a person’s sex or gender identity constitutes legally adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter, and it also addressed mitigation of the severity of non-capital crimes.
The text of ABA House of Delegates Resolution 113A used the phrase “federal, tribal, state, local and territorial governments” when describing the governmental bodies it urged to take legislative action.
Different court systems may treat similar arguments in different ways
ABA publications discussing gay and trans panic typically describe these arguments as appearing through familiar criminal-law frameworks, such as provocation, self-defense, insanity, or diminished capacity, rather than as a single uniform doctrine with identical rules everywhere.
Case level rulings can affect what a jury hears and what a later court reviews
In criminal cases, disputes about what arguments and evidence may be presented to a jury commonly arise before and during trial, and some issues may later be reviewed by a higher court depending on the jurisdiction and the issue raised.
