Citation network
Cooper Vs. Oklahoma
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 16, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 348 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Cooper V. OklahomaSearch
-
a) It is well settled that the criminal trial of an incompetent defendant violates due process. Medina v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Process Clause when, as here, the procedures do not sufficiently protect a fundamental constitutional right. Patterson v. NewSearch
-
York, 432 U. S. 197 , distinguished. The decision herein is in complete accord with the ruling in Addington v. TexasSearch
-
witnesses, and the right to testify on one's own behalf or to remain silent without penalty for doing so. Drope v. MissouriSearch
-
a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.''' Dusky v. UnitedSearch
-
to merit protection even if the defendant has failed to make a timely request for a competency determination. See Pate v. RobinsonSearch
-
the charges and proceedings brought against him and to effectively and 355 Our recent decision in Medina v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Id., at 445 (quoting Patterson v. NewSearch
-
King v. SteelSearch
-
Beginning in the late 18th century, cases appear which provide an inkling of the proper standard. In King v. FrithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Id., at 311. Some 50 years later the jurors received a nearly identical admonition in Queen v. GoodeSearch
-
Id., at 536, n. (a), 112 Eng. Rep., at 572-573, n. (a)2. 8 Similarly, in King v. PritchardSearch
-
Ibid. See also King v. DysonSearch
-
Queen v. SoutheySearch
-
Queen v. BerrySearch
-
King v. PritchardSearch
-
including Pritchard and King v. DysonSearch
-
Car. & P. 305, n. (a), 173 Eng. Rep. 135, n. (a) (1831), the court in Queen v. PodolaSearch
-
some 19th-century English authorities placed the burden on the prosecutor once competence was put in issue. Medina v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S., at 447. See Queen v. DaviesSearch
-
But see Queen v. PodolaSearch
-
quite recently. Rather, the earliest available sources typically refer to English authorities, see, e. g., Freeman v. PeopleSearch
-
Am. Dec. 216, 223-225 (N. Y. 1847), State v. HarrisSearch
-
Am. Dec. 272, 272-275 (N. C. 1860) (adopting procedures outlined in King v. DysonSearch
-
Car. & P. 305, n. (a), 173 Eng. Rep. 135, n. (a) (1831), and King v. PritchardSearch
-
Eng. Rep. 135 (1836)), and employ the disjunctive language used by the English courts, see, e. g., Commonwealth v. HathawaySearch
-
People v. KleimSearch
-
United States v. ChisolmSearch
-
State v. O'GradySearch
-
Some 15 years later, the Tennessee Supreme Court described the competency determination as 12 In Commonwealth v. BraleySearch
-
disjunctive. 13 See also State v. TylerSearch
-
by the evidence supporting that conclusion). Both Tyler and State v. O'GradySearch
-
Jordan v. StateSearch
-
Commonwealth v. SimanowiczSearch
-
criminal defendant to prove his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence.16 None of the re- 14 See also State v. ArnoldSearch
-
People v. McElvaineSearch
-
See also Crocker v. StateSearch
-
explicitly mention the common-law roots of the State's statutory procedure for determining competency. See People v. McElvaineSearch
-
French v. StateSearch
-
the prosecutor to by Oklahoma and Connecticut may have been a response to this Court's decision in Addington v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 418 (1979). We discuss Addington infra, at 368-369. 17See Lackey v. StateSearch
-
M cCarlo v. StateSearch
-
Diaz v. StateSearch
-
Flowers v. StateSearch
-
Syllabus Cooper V. OklahomaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial