Cooper v. Oklahoma
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. The court said the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated.
| Cooper v. Oklahoma | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 17, 1996 Decided April 16, 1996 | |
| Full case name | Bryon Keith Cooper, Petitioner v. Oklahoma |
| Citations | 517 U.S. 348 (more) 116 S. Ct. 1373; 134 L. Ed. 2d 498; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 2649 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Directed verdict for defendant affirmed, Cooper v. State, 1995 OK CR 2, 889 P.2d 293; cert. granted, 516 U.S. 910 (1995). |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| Oklahoma's procedural rule that allows the State to try a defendant who is more likely than not incompetent violates due process. Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
In this case, the defendant's ability to understand the charges against him and his ability to assist in his own defense was challenged on five separate occasions before and during his trial and sentencing for capital murder, but the trial judge ruled he was competent to stand trial because he did not meet Oklahoma's high standard of proof.