## Facts

- Byron Keith Cooper was charged in Oklahoma with first-degree murder arising from a burglary that resulted in the death of an 86-year-old man.
- Before and during trial, Cooper’s competence to stand trial was formally considered five times.
- At the first competency determination, a judge found Cooper incompetent based on a state psychologist’s opinion and committed him to a state mental health facility.
- After release, a second hearing featured conflicting testimony from two state psychologists; the trial court resolved the conflict against Cooper and set the case for trial.
- Shortly before trial, defense counsel again questioned competence, reporting odd behavior and refusal to communicate; the court declined to revisit competence.
- On the first day of trial, Cooper’s behavior prompted another competency hearing; witnesses described conduct including refusing to change clothes because they “burned,” fleeing from counsel, and speaking to himself while in a fetal position.
- A psychologist testified Cooper was then incompetent and unable to communicate effectively with counsel, though potentially restorable with intensive treatment; the trial judge stated he did not dispute the diagnosis but found Cooper competent because Cooper had not met Oklahoma’s “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
- Competence was raised again mid-trial; the court again found Cooper competent.
- Cooper was convicted, the jury recommended death, and the trial court imposed a death sentence; the state appellate court affirmed under Oklahoma’s rule presuming competence and requiring defendants to prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a state to require a criminal defendant to prove incompetence to stand trial by clear and convincing evidence, thereby allowing trial to proceed even when the defendant is more likely than not incompetent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Oklahoma’s clear-and-convincing burden for proving incompetence violates due process because it permits trial of a defendant who is more likely than not incompetent.
- The Court concluded that defendants must be allowed to establish incompetence at least by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Trying an incompetent defendant violates due process; competence turns on the defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
- A state may presume competence and place on the defendant the burden to prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A clear-and-convincing standard for incompetence determinations creates an impermissible risk of error against the defendant and is inconsistent with fundamental fairness.
- Broad common-law and modern practice using a preponderance standard supports treating that standard as the constitutional floor.
- State interests in preventing malingering and maintaining efficient, orderly proceedings do not justify a heightened burden that risks subjecting incompetent defendants to trial.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Oklahoma’s requirement that defendants prove incompetence by clear and convincing evidence, holding that due process requires permitting proof of incompetence by at least a preponderance of the evidence to avoid trying defendants who are more likely than not incompetent.


Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)