In the 2009 case of George Porter, Jr. v. Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Porter by a unanimous decision. The court held that his counsel was ineffective during sentencing for not presenting significant mitigating evidence about his military service and mental health issues related to it. Porter had been convicted for two murders in 1988 and sentenced to death but appealed on grounds that he received inadequate legal representation at trial because his lawyer failed to present crucial information which could have influenced the jury's decision regarding capital punishment. This ruling emphasized the importance of comprehensive defense strategies including all relevant aspects of a defendant’s background when arguing against imposition of death penalty.

In the dissenting opinion for George Porter, Jr. v. Bill McCollum, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Porter's death sentence due to ineffective counsel during his sentencing phase. He argued that there was no reasonable probability that a competent attorney presenting evidence of Porter’s traumatic childhood and military service would have changed the outcome of his sentencing. The jury had already heard substantial mitigating evidence about these factors in relation to another crime he committed, yet still recommended a death sentence for both crimes separately. Furthermore, Scalia pointed out that even if this additional information had been presented at trial it may not have helped Porter because it could also be seen as aggravating rather than mitigating - showing him as someone who repeatedly failed to learn from past mistakes or take advantage of opportunities for reform.