December 4, 2009
Supreme Court: Combat Experiences Should Factor in Trials

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts that weigh cases involving veterans convicted of serious crimes should consider the adverse mental-health effects of combat before imposing the death penalty. In a Nov. 30 opinion, the high court upheld a Florida federal district court ruling that George Porter, a Korean War veteran, should have been allowed to present evidence during his trial that he endured great hardship as a soldier during two long and brutal combat operations.

Porter was convicted of first-degree murder in 1988 for killing his wife and her boyfriend two years earlier. He was sentenced to death for the first charge. Court records show that Porter initially represented himself, but eventually was assigned a lawyer. The defense attorney, in turn, only spoke to Porter once and never asked him to provide evidence that his combat experiences left him traumatized. While the district court determined that the attorney should have done so, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and upheld the trial conviction and sentencing. Porter appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court. In issuing their decision, the justices said, "Like the District Court, we are persuaded that it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter’s counsel neither uncovered nor presented." With the decision, Porter will be granted a new trial, in which the critical evidence will be allowed.