Byron Keith Cooper v. Oklahoma
United States Supreme Court
517 U.S. 348 (1996)
- Written by Monica Rottermann , JD
Facts
Byron Keith Cooper (plaintiff) was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. During the proceedings, Cooper’s competency was raised to the judge five times. The judge initially found Cooper incompetent, but after a three-month commitment, the judge reversed the finding and determined that Cooper was competent to stand trial. Cooper’s attorney argued that Cooper was incompetent based on Cooper’s odd behavior, Cooper’s inability to communicate effectively with the attorney, and Cooper’s fear of the attorney. The judge heard testimony from a psychologist who testified that Cooper might be competent in six weeks, if treated aggressively. The judge also observed Cooper’s behavior in the courtroom, including Cooper’s refusal to change out of prison overalls, Cooper speaking to himself and a spirit, Cooper laying in a fetal position, and Cooper avoiding any contact with Cooper’s attorney. The judge ruled that Cooper was competent, as Cooper had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was incompetent. Cooper appealed, arguing that Oklahoma’s (defendant) burden of proof for incompetency violated his due-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, sentence, and competency finding. The appeals court stated that the clear and convincing standard was correct. The United States Supreme Court granted review of the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.