Opinion ID: 768365
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Procedural Claims

Text: 44 Finally, Coe raises a number of other challenges to the procedures used by the Tennessee courts in deciding his competency. Given Justice Powell's opinion in Ford, we believe that [a]s long as basic fairness is observed in a prisoner's competency-to-be-executed determination, a state has substantial leeway to determine what process best balances the various interests at stake. Ford, 477 U.S. at 427 (Powell, J., concurring). Accordingly, we must give the Tennessee courts substantial discretion in fashioning the procedures employed in Coe's competency proceedings. Where Coe was given an extensive hearing over several days and was given the opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine the state's mental health experts, it is not our role to second guess all of the procedural decisions made by the Tennessee courts. Moreover, we note that the district court ably addressed Coe's claims in a thorough 42-page opinion denying habeas relief. It would serve no jurisprudential purpose to discuss these claims any further.