A veteran's legal battle

INMATES COMMONLY challenge convictions or sentences based on claims that they were saddled with bad lawyers. Just as common are decisions by judges to deny such claims. So it is extraordinary that last week a unanimous Supreme Court tossed out a death sentence against a Florida inmate who made such an argument. And no wonder.

George Porter Jr., a Korean War veteran with two Purple Hearts, pleaded guilty to the murder of a former girlfriend and her new boyfriend and was sentenced to death in 1988.

The justices did not overturn the convictions but lambasted the defense lawyer's failure to introduce mitigating evidence -- including military service and possible post-traumatic stress -- that could have led to a reduced sentence.

Had Mr. Porter's counsel been "effective," the justices wrote in the unsigned Nov. 30 opinion, the trial judge and jury would have learned about the kind of "troubled history" that the court has "declared relevant to assessing a defendant's moral culpability. . . . They would have heard about (1) Porter's heroic military service in two of the most critical -- and horrific -- battles of the Korean War, (2) his struggles to regain normality upon his return from war, (3) his childhood history of physical abuse, and (4) his brain abnormality, difficulty reading and writing, and limited schooling."

The original lawyer for Mr. Porter either did not know of or failed to present any of this information. The justices concluded that the lawyer "unquestionably" failed his client and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

The justices rightly excoriated lower courts, including the Florida Supreme Court, that rejected Mr. Porter's appeals even after new lawyers presented such evidence. "Our Nation has a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service, especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did," they concluded. Neither childhood traumas nor military service can excuse crime, but they can help, as the justices wrote, "humanize" a person so that a judge and jury can make an informed decision about the appropriate punishment.

In a way, Mr. Porter is lucky: His case stuck out because of his military record. That record deserves to be honored. But we wonder how many other defendants with "troubled histories" but without Purple Hearts have been failed by their lawyers and are still awaiting justice.