In too many cases involving killings of senior gay men, the defendants get little punishment. There’s a strategy. First, he claims to be completely straight. He claims he didn’t know it was a gay bar. He claims that he went home with the older gay man simply as a friendly gesture, perhaps to watch re-runs of “The Golden Girls.”

At trial, the younger man testifies that the older gay made a sexual advance and the younger straight man responded with violence. He didn’t mean to kill the older man, but he was so overcome with revulsion, he couldn’t think straight. He now has remorse.

The defense caters to juror bias against gay men. Jurors will not send a clean-cut young man to prison (forget the death penalty) for simply killing an “old queen.”

Of course, we never know the facts in these cases because the older gay man is dead. Gay men assume that their attackers are gay or bisexual. Once convicted of murder, the attackers pretend to be straight for juror sympathy. The latest defense strategy is to also claim that the young man on trial was molested as a child and that he hates gays because of this. Invariably, the molester was a stranger who cannot be found. So the story can be completely made up.

Lawyers call this the “homosexual panic defense” strategy.

Courts allow homosexual panic as a defense, much the same as they allow self-defense. Here, the defense argues that the defendant acted in self-defense or out of rage, and that that should excuse the murder. More often, defendants use the defense to mitigate a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter, a lesser charge carrying a lesser jail sentence.

Gay folks know the reality is that, in most of these cases, the attackers have robbery or murder on their minds. The modus operandi involves finding older, wealthy gay men. Ideally, the men are closeted and frail. The closeted gay man is a perfect target because if he is robbed, he’s not going to notify police. And, even if he does, police may provide little help, or even harass or belittle the victim.

No court in America should allow the homosexual panic defense. Imagine the heterosexual panic defense — if every woman who has suffered the indignity of having a man kiss her or put his hand on her breast responded by taking out a gun and shooting him. Imagine how long that would last.

The California Supreme Court recently reversed the conviction of a young man charged with killing an older gay male.

Police know that getting a confession in these cases is key, and they usually do. Police know what happens when these cases go to trial. The victim is dead and the young man appears naïve, vulnerable, and innocent. Jurors may harbor deep prejudices against gay men based upon myths that older gay men are lecherous child-molesters. The defendant feeds the bias by testifying that the older man, of course, tried to molest him. It works.

That was the strategy in People v. Neal, where an 18-year-old confessed to the murder of a 69-year-old gay man. He confessed that he was “just pissed” because the older man (Collins), at whose home Neal was staying, wanted to watch the news while he (Neal) wanted to watch MTV. He also told the detective that the victim had tried to touch his penis on two separate occasions while Neal slept on the couch. But after Neal told him he’d “whup his ass” if he tried that again, he stopped.

But at trial, Neal had a different story to tell the jury. He testified that he had gotten drunk on the day of the murder, fell asleep atop Collins’ bed and awoke with Collins on top of him, trying to pull his pants down to forcibly sodomize him. Neal said they struggled violently until Neal broke free. Later, still enraged, Neal strangled Collins with an electrical cord for a couple of minutes. He didn’t intend to kill him.

The prosecution not only showed that Collins’ bed was perfectly made when found, but also that Neal had confessed that Collins made no sexual advances towards him, and that he killed Collins because he couldn’t watch MTV.

The California Supreme Court felt the police went too far in extracting the confession.

The court noted that the detective gave Neal the customary Miranda warnings about his right to remain silent and see a lawyer. But when Neal asked him to stop questioning nine times, Martin should have stopped. The next day when Neal wanted to make the confession, Martin should not have taken it, said the court. Martin claimed that he knew the confession wouldn’t be admissible, but that he thought it could be used against Neal.

The court took into account the defendant’s lack of sophistication, minimal education, low intelligence and inexperience with the legal system. He admitted to the killing only after he’d been locked up overnight in a cell with no food, water or toilet.

Neal will be re-tried and will most likely be re-convicted of murder.