{"id":583,"date":"2009-12-01T09:35:31","date_gmt":"2009-12-01T16:35:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.harvardnsj.com\/?p=583"},"modified":"2014-04-09T14:41:17","modified_gmt":"2014-04-09T18:41:17","slug":"compassion-for-veterans-combat-stress-finds-its-way-to-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/2009\/12\/compassion-for-veterans-combat-stress-finds-its-way-to-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Compassion for Veterans\u2019 Combat Stress Finds its Way to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/opinions\/09pdf\/08-10537.pdf\">this<\/a> unsigned opinion released yesterday, the Supreme Court appeared to recognize that the toll of combat stress on America\u2019s war veterans could be a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions.\u00a0 The case, <em>Porter v. McCollum<\/em>, 08-10537, involves the conviction of a Korean War veteran, George Porter Jr., for the murder of his former girlfriend and her boyfriend in 1986. \u00a0The Court overturned Porter\u2019s death sentence, recognizing that his \u201ccombat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Commentators noted that it is unclear whether the ruling will directly affect other criminal cases against defendants who claim to have experienced symptoms of combat stress.\u00a0 SCOTUSBlog contributor Lyle Denniston observed that parts of the Court\u2019s opinion, which held that Mr. Porter was entitled to resentencing based on the failure of his trial counsel to present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase, \u201cread as if the Justices did intend to speak more broadly.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>See the SCOTUSBlog write-up on the opinion <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/wp\/post-combat-stress-as-a-defense\/#more-13347\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this unsigned opinion released yesterday, the Supreme Court appeared to recognize that the toll of combat stress on America\u2019s war veterans could be a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions.\u00a0 The case, Porter v. McCollum, 08-10537, involves the conviction of a Korean War veteran, George Porter Jr., for the murder of his former girlfriend and her boyfriend in 1986. \u00a0The Court overturned Porter\u2019s death sentence, recognizing that his \u201ccombat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man.\u201d Commentators noted that it is unclear whether the ruling will directly affect other criminal cases against defendants who claim to have experienced symptoms [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4401,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/82\/2009\/12\/vets-262x3001.jpg?fit=262%2C300&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZtUX-9p","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4401"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/nsj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}