Supreme Court of the United States
Cooper v. Oklahoma
April 16, 1996517 U.S. 348
Summary
Justice Stevens delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Oklahoma violated due process by requiring a criminal defendant to prove incompetence to stand trial by clear and convincing evidence. Although a State may presume competence and require proof of incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence, Oklahoma’s heightened standard permitted trial of defendants who were more likely than not incompetent. Historical practice, contemporary procedures, and the fundamental right not to stand trial while incompetent established that this allocation of the risk of error was unconstitutional. The Court reversed and remanded. There were no separate opinions.
Holding
- Constitutionality of requiring clear and convincing evidence of incompetence to stand trial.. Due process prohibits requiring a criminal defendant to prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence because that standard permits trial when the defendant is more likely than not incompetent.
Docket 95-5207
Cited authorities
- R. 418
- 18 U.S.C. §4241
- Conn. Gen. Stat. §54
- 50 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7403
- Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-8-111
- Haw. Rev. Stat. §§704-404
- Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2945.37
- Utah Code Ann. §77-15-5
Cited by
- United States v. Turner
- Commonwealth v. Larry Burgess
- Robertson v. Ryan
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Frederic J. Jermyn, Appellant
- John David Battaglia v. the State of Texas
- In the Matter of H.c.
- City of Albuquerque, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ernest B. Chavez, Defendant-Appellee
- Albert James Turner, Appellant v. the State of Texas