November 18, 1997
Byron Keith Cooper, Petitioner v. Oklahoma No. 95-5207 (1996)
Basic Facts: Cooper is charged with the brutal slaying of an 86-year-old male. He is charged with the first degree. The courts have problems with CST(competency to stand trial) and the case is continuously questioned through the system. The defense lawyer feels that his client is not competent to stand trial, while the judge refuses to accept any of the testimonies of the clinical psychologists as proof that the defendant is incompetent.
Situation: The argument lies in the Constitution. Too try someone who is incompetent to stand trial is a violation of due process. The determination of how to distinguish competency from incompetency was given to the courts. Medina v. California said that it is presumed that the defendant is competent to stand trial unless he/she is able to prove otherwise.
Immediate Question: Was Cooper competent to stand trial and was he guilty of murder in the first degree?
Immediate Answer: Yes. Cooper was competent to stand trial because he failed to show a preponderance of evidence that he was incompetent, and he was guilty of murder in the first degree, which earned him the death penalty.
Legal Questions: Should the defendant have to be responsible for proving that he/she is incompetent? What determines incompetency? What is the degree of proof that is burdened on the defendant?
Precedents that the Court might have considered: Medina v. California 505 US 437, 449 (1992)-established that States may presume defendant's competence unless he/she chose to pursue his/her incompetence in which he/she would have to provide a great amount of evidence supporting his/her claim. The state of Oklahoma used Medina v. California as a precedent to the Cooper case. Some other cases relating to CST: Drope v. Missouri("Competence to stand trial is rudimentary, for upon it depends the main part of those rights deemed essential to a fair trial, including the right to effective assistance of counsel, the rights to summon, to confront, and to cross examine witnesses, and the right to testify on one's own behalf or to remain silent without penalty for doing so. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 171-172 (1975)."), 420 U.S. 162, 171-172 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378, Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418.
Legal Implications: This case states the difference between the prosecution's responsibility to prove one as guilty, while the defendant's responsibility is to prove that he is incompetent to stand trial, which take somewhat of a lesser degree of proof, called, "the preponderance of evidence." This case also made it clear that Medina v. California was a set precedent(that the defendant has the burden of the preponderance of evidence to prove that he is incompetent), and that it would be used by common law as a precedent.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: The verdict was unanimous(all concurred).