Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 204.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 30 (2009) 

43 

Per Curiam 

preme Court gave any consideration for the purpose of non-
statutory mitigation to Dr. Dee’s testimony regarding the ex­
istence of a brain abnormality and cognitive defects.7  While 
the  State’s  experts  identiﬁed  perceived  problems  with  the 
tests  that  Dr.  Dee  used  and  the  conclusions  that  he  drew 
from  them,  it  was  not  reasonable  to  discount  entirely  the 
effect  that  his  testimony  might  have  had  on  the  jury  or  the 
sentencing judge. 

Furthermore,  the  Florida  Supreme  Court,  following  the 
state  postconviction  court,  unreasonably  discounted  the  evi­
dence  of  Porter’s  childhood  abuse  and  military  service.  It 
is  unreasonable  to  discount  to  irrelevance  the  evidence  of 
Porter’s abusive childhood, especially when that kind of his­
tory may have particular salience for a jury evaluating Por­
ter’s  behavior  in  his  relationship  with  Williams.  It  is  also 
unreasonable  to  conclude  that  Porter’s  military  service 
would  be  reduced  to  “inconsequential  proportions,”  788 
So.  2d,  at  925,  simply  because  the  jury  would  also  have 
learned that Porter went AWOL on more than one occasion. 
Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to vet­
erans in recognition of their service, especially for those who 
fought on the front lines as Porter did.8  Moreover, the rele­
vance  of  Porter’s  extensive  combat  experience  is  not  only 
that he served honorably under extreme hardship and grue­
some conditions, but also that the jury might ﬁnd mitigating 

7 The  Florida  Supreme  Court  acknowledged  that  Porter  had  presented 
evidence of “statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigation,” 788 So. 2d, at 
921,  but  it  did  not  consider  Porter’s  mental  health  evidence  in  its  discus­
sion of nonstatutory mitigating evidence, id., at 924. 

8 See Abbott, The Civil War and the Crime Wave of 1865–70, 1 Soc. Serv. 
Rev.  212,  232–234  (1927)  (discussing  the  movement  to  pardon  or  parole 
prisoners who were veterans of the Civil War); Rosenbaum, The Relation­
ship  Between  War  and  Crime  in  the  United  States,  30  J.  Crim.  L.  &  C. 
722,  733–734  (1940)  (describing  a  1922  study  by  the  Wisconsin  Board  of 
Control  that  discussed  the  number  of  veterans  imprisoned  in  the  State 
and considered “the greater leniency that may be shown to ex-service men 
in court”).