Cooper v. Oklahoma

Background

A man charged in Oklahoma with the brutal killing of an 86-year-old during a burglary faced multiple court hearings about whether he could understand the charges and help his lawyer. Psychologists and judges disagreed at different times; one early judge sent him for treatment after finding him incompetent, later experts clashed, and a trial judge ultimately concluded that the defendant had not met Oklahoma’s rule requiring "clear and convincing" evidence of incompetence. The defendant was tried, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence, and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether due process permits a State to try a defendant who has shown it is more likely than not that he is incompetent. Examining history and modern practice, the Court found longstanding reliance on a lower proof standard (a "preponderance" or balance-of-probabilities) rather than the higher clear-and-convincing standard Oklahoma used. The opinion explained that putting the heavier burden on the defendant creates a substantial risk that an actually incompetent person will be tried, which threatens core trial rights like communicating with counsel and deciding whether to testify. Weighing the State’s interest in prompt trials against the defendant’s fundamental right not to be tried while mentally unfit, the Court concluded Oklahoma’s rule violates the Due Process Clause and cannot stand.

Real world impact

The ruling reverses the Oklahoma decision and sends the case back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. It bars States from using a clear-and-convincing rule to permit trials of defendants who are more likely than not incompetent, and it aligns criminal practice with federal and most state standards.