Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

In February 1982, Spisak embarked on a racist, anti-Semitic shooting spree, calling it his first "seek and destroy mission" in which he was attempting to "clean up the city".

On August 9, Spisak shot at Coletta Dartt, a white woman who he claimed had "made some derisive remarks about us," referring to the Nazi Party.

[4] Second he argued that he had suffered significant harm because his original counsel had given an inadequate closing argument during sentencing (violating Strickland v. Washington, 1984).

In Mills v. Maryland (1988),[4] the Supreme Court ruled that when imposing the death penalty the jury must be allowed to consider any mitigating circumstances that included any part of the defendant's record.

The Court ruled that the State of Ohio had not violated the rights of the defendant by requiring the jury to only consider unanimous mitigating factors.

Describing in detail the closing arguments of the trial Justice Stevens went as far to say that Spisak had "alienated and ostracized the jury".

[8] Spisak's last meal consisted of spaghetti with tomato sauce, a salad, chocolate cake, and coffee.