First, this is a case from SCOTUS rather than the CCA and an appeal from the 11th rather than the 5th circuits.

Given that caveat, I'm still interested in what the great minds on this forum think of the case and of the idea that an attorney is ineffective to the point of requiring relief by not introducing evidence of previous military service as mitigation in a murder case.

Does this suggest an greater willingness to hear this defense in the future? A shift in the law? Or is this a case that, in practice, results more directly from and is more properly limited to the underlying facts?

The remedy may well be limited to a new punishment trial in any case.

SCOUTS blog has a nice summary at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/post-combat-stress-as-a-defense/#more-13347

It seems in line with the SCOTUS trend in capital cases--the evolving standards of decency, the importance of mitigating evidence, IAC,and death is different precedents. Absent a sound strategy for not presenting the evidence, one is left wondering why on earth defense counsel did not. That said, though, given the Malvos of this world, military experience could be a double-edged sword.

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 12-01-09 at .]