Legal Document

517 U.S. 348116 S.Ct. 1373134 L.Ed.2d 498 COOPERv.OKLAHOMA Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals Oklahoma. No. 95-5207. Supreme United States Argued January 17, 1996 Decided April 16, Syllabus* Oklahoma law presumes that a criminal defendant is competent stand trial unless he proves his incompetence by clear and convincing evidence. Applying standard, judge found petitioner Cooper on separate occasions before during for first degree murder, despite bizarre behavior conflicting expert testimony issue. In affirming conviction death sentence, rejected argument State's presumption competence, combined with its evidence placed such an onerous burden him as violate due process. Held: Because Oklahoma's procedural rule allows State try who more likely than not incompetent, it violates Pp. 5-22. (a) It well-settled incompetent Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 449, establishes may presume require prove preponderance Such does offend "`principle justice so rooted in traditions conscience our people be ranked fundamental,'" id., at 445, affects outcome "only narrow class cases . where just strong incompetent," 449. This case, however, presents quite different question whether proceed after has shown incompetent. 5-7. (b) no roots historical practice. Both early English American suggest common standard proof was That this same currently used 46 federal courts indicates vast majority jurisdictions remain persuaded heightened necessary vindicate interest prompt orderly disposition cases. The near-uniform application protective defendant's rights supports conclusion offends deeply principle justice. 7-14. (c) exihibit "fundamental fairness" operation. An erroneous determination competence dire consequences already demonstrated threatening basic fairness itself. A inability communicate effectively counsel leave unable exercise other deemed essential fair trial-e.g., choosing plead guilty, waiving privilege against compulsory self-incrimination taking witness stand, or jury cross-examine witnesses-and make myriad smaller decisions concerning course defense. These risks outweigh efficient operation system. Difficulty ascertaining malingering appropriate place him, but justify additional onus especially high proof. 14-19. (d) Although normally within power establish procedures through which laws are given effect, regulate burdens subject proscription under Due Process Clause when, here, do sufficiently protect fundamental constitutional right. Patterson New York, 432 197, distinguished. decision herein complete accord ruling Addington Texas, 441 418, process requires involuntary civil commitment proceedings. protects individual's liberty interest, while case safeguards right 19-21. 889 P. 2d 293, reversed remanded. Justice Stevens delivered opinion Court. 1 prosecution presumed Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, Section(s) 1175.4(B) (1991). Under put even though we address violated Fourteenth Amendment. 2 * 1989 charged brutal killing 86-year-old man burglary. After guilty first-degree murder recommended punishment death, court imposed penalty. affirmed sentence. 3 Petitioner's focus significant attention both trial. On five considered had ability understand charges assist defense counsel. occasion, pretrial relied clinical psychologist employed find Based determination, committed state mental health facility treatment. 4 Upon petitioner's release from hospital some three months later, heard two state-employed psychologists. experts expressed opinions regarding participate resolved dispute petitioner, ordering 5 At close hearing held one week scheduled begin, lead attorney raised issue third time. Counsel advised behaving oddly refusing him. Defense opined would serious matter "if he's faking." App. 6. listening counsel's concerns, declined revisit earlier 6 addressed fourth time day trial, when prompted conduct further competency observed several lay witnesses, psychologist, himself.1 concluded presently counsel, could probably achieve six weeks if treated aggressively. While stating did psychologist's diagnosis, ruled petitioner. holding, voiced uncertainty: 7 "Well, I think I've expression past normal like us. Anybody that's us normal, don't proper definition use incompetence. My shirtsleeve Mr. normal. Now, say something else. 8 .... 9 "But you know, all things considered, suppose it's possible client predicament can't help still possibility, too. 10 "I going take smarter me here. I'm believe carried incompetency we're go trial." Id., 42-43. 11 Incidents occurred trial,2 well sordid history childhood recounted sentencing phase proceeding, were consistent conclusions expert. final effort client's interests, moved mistrial renewed investigation into competence. summarily denied these motions, convicted sentenced death. 12 Appeals, contended statutory requirement evidence, 1175.4(B),3 law. appellate argument. noting can difficult determine malingering, "the inexactness uncertainty attached [competency] proceedings," justified because "State great assuring citizens thorough speedy judicial process," "truly defendant, attorneys experts, relative ease." 303 (1995). We granted certiorari review Appeals' 516 ___ II 13 No questions existence invokes. have repeatedly consistently recognized process." 453 (1992); Drope Missouri, 420 162, 171-172 (1975); Pate Robinson, 383 375, 378 (1966). Nor significance open dispute. As Kennedy recently emphasized: 14 "Competence rudimentary, upon depends main part those including effective assistance summon, confront, testify one's own behalf silent without penalty doing so. (1975)." Riggins Nevada, 504 127, 139-140 (1992) (opinion concurring judgment).4 15 test also well-settled. "`has sufficient present consult lawyer reasonable rational understanding [and] factual proceedings him.'" Dusky States, 362 402, 402 (1960) (per curiam).5 16 Our recent 437 (1992), shoulder proving reaching relevant inquiry "`offends fundamental.'" 445 (quoting 202 (1977)). contrasted "deep common-law heritage" underlying prohibition trying absence any settled tradition allocation proceeding. S., 446. rested fact equipoise; is, incompetent." 449.6 17 today posed Medina. claim consider contend beyond doubt.7 maintains, provides accommodation opposing interests defendant. persuaded, traditional modern practice importance stake, must rejected. III 18 "Historical probative characterized fundamental," Medina, unlike there indication seeks defend prior Indeed, appears significantly favorable long application. 19 turn examination England country. well-established Hale Blackstone wrote their famous commentaries. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *24 ("[I]f sound memory commits capital offence [a]nd if, pleaded, prisoner becomes mad, shall tried: how defence?"); M. Hale, Pleas Crown *34-*35 (same). predate Constitution provide guidance, applicable determinations. See Trial Charles Bateman (1685), reported How. St. Tr. 464, 467 (1816), Hawles, Remarks Bateman, 474, 476 (1816) (noting 1685 incurred "censure" proceeding doubt competence); Kinloch's Case (1746), 395, 411 (1813); King Steel, Leach 452, 168 Eng. Rep. 328 (1787). 20 Beginning late 18th century, appear inkling standard. Frith, 22 307 (1790), example, instructed "diligently inquire John now bar mind ." 311. Some 50 years later jurors received nearly identical admonition Queen Goode, Ad. & E. 536, 112 572 (K. B. 1837): "`You diligently true presentment Goode insane .'" n. (a), Rep., 572-573, (a)2.8 Similarly, Pritchard, Car. 303, 173 135 (1836), empaneled "whether mute malice not; secondly, indictment thirdly, intellect comprehend Ibid. Dyson, 73 305, 135-136, (1831); Southey, F. 864, 895, 176 825, 838 (1865); Berry, Q. 447, 449 (1876). Ibid.9 21 authorities, speaking less clearly might wish, instructive. By phrasing simple disjunctive, Pritchard required "more not" Nothing instructions will bear interpretation What more, contain represented departure (pre-Constitution) practice.10 Modern authority confirms applying Relying "principles laid down number cases," 135, (1831), Podola, 43 Crim. 220, All R. 418 (1959), ruled: 23 "If contention accused forward defence contested prosecution, judgment, satisfying accused's insanity. rests defence, discharged satisfied balance probabilities insanity been made out." 235, R., 429.11 24 Likewise, aware decisional country suggesting until recently. Rather, earliest available sources typically refer see, e.g., Freeman People, 47 Am. Dec. 216, 223-225 (N. Y. 1847), Harris, 78 272, 272-275 C. 1860) (adopting outlined (1831) (1836)), employ disjunctive language courts, Commonwealth Hathaway, Mass. 299, 299 (1816); People Kleim, N. 13, (1845); Dec., 275; Chisolm, 149 284, 290 (SD Ala. 1906).12 20th explicitly 1896, Ohio juries "[t]he show insane." O'Grady, 654, 655 (1896).13 Tennessee described "controlled proof," Jordan State, 124 Tenn. 81, 89, 327, 329 (1911), highest Pennsylvania "decided evidence," Simanowicz, 242 Pa. 405, 89 A. 562, 563 (1913).14 authorities bereft susceptible supporting standard.15 25 Contemporary demonstrates Only evidence.16 None remaining imposes heavy defendant.17 all, rather prosecutor once about credibly raised.18 situation court. Congress directed 4241. 26 "rooted people." (internal quotation marks omitted). next consideration exhibits "`fundamental fairness' operation." 448 Dowling 493 342, 352 (1990)). IV 27 fully evaluation inherent requiring explained that: 28 "The function proof, concept embodied realm factfinding, `to instruct factfinder confidence society thinks should correctness particular type adjudication.' re Winship, 397 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring)." 423 (1979). 29 stringent party bear, bears risk decision." Cruzan Director, Mo. Dept. Health, 497 261, 283 (1990). For reason, places "individual stake `particularly important' `more substantial mere loss money.'" Santosky Kramer, 455 745, 756 (1982) (termination parental rights) Addington, 424).19 30 Far "jealously guard[ing]," Jacob York City, 315 752, 752-753 (1942), competent. comparable affect only either side equally balanced. "Once access making evaluation," stated, "no basis holding assume vindicating persuading trier Unlike 31 dire. lacks "rights 139 (Kennedy, judgment). "profound" choice Godinez Moran, 509 389, 398 (1993), proceeds 32 "will ordinarily decide waive `privilege self-incrimination,' Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 243 (1969), stand; option available, `right jury,' ibid.; and, consultation confront [his] accusers,' ibid., declining witnesses prosecution." 33 With called threatens component system"20-the 34 comparison injury </B></I>State opposite error-a malingering-is modest. To sure, error expense treasury frustrates charges. But correction subsequent detain period probability attain [competence] foreseeable future." Jackson Indiana, 406 715, 738 (1972).21 35 correctly "inexactness uncertainty" characterize malingering. presume, unusual most artful malingerer feign successfully professional care.22 regard worth reiterating four impose Moreover, reason art dissimilation new. Eighteenth nineteenth century warned determinations "`there fraud matter,'" 136, Crown, *35), "[i]t reproach postponed feigned condition mind, aid defense," F., 288.23 they risk, resort Part III, supra. 36 More fundamentally, difficulty truth lies proponent issue, Chisolm continued, 37 "[I]t likewise institutions, human being compelled possession faculties enable latter grievous former; since individual unwhipped justice, adopts crime upholding rudely invaded tribunal whose sacred duty uphold integrity." 288. 38 decrease error, simply reallocates between parties. 283. perceive allocating large share accompanies arise range prevail ease, insufficiently satisfy important unquestionably tried outweighs V. 39 makes arguments support warrant discussion. First, reminds related producing persuasion. 201-202 (1977). upheld York's second-degree affirmative extreme emotional disturbance order reduce manslaughter. 207-208. observing practice, 202, abandoning [statutory] defenses undertaking disprove convict otherwise powers sanction punishment." 40 violation Patterson, noted "offends fundamental." involves rule. concerned defense, here guaranteeing deep character capacity nature mandate protection. 41 Finally, suggests (1979), imposition unpersuasive entirely substantive issues. opportunity outer limits civilly commit unwilling individual, O'Connor Donaldson, 422 563, 573-574 (1975), Donaldson minimum showing person mentally ill poses danger himself others incapable "surviving safely freedom," 573-576. contrast, 402. Even proceedings, standards guarantee parallel results.24 42 importantly, Addington. concern protection circumstances proposes drastic action individual. grounds liberty. demonstrate incompatible dictates process.25 VI foregoing reasons, judgment remanded inconsistent opinion. 44 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. During refused change out prison overalls proffered clothes "burning" Pretrial Motions Competency Hearings 3-4 (May 4-5, 1992), talked imaginary "spirit" claimed gave fear wanted kill reminded incident testimony: "Every get space seated little enclave up away far back off I'd give space. So, approached every side. except haven't front. So yesterday, approach And last thing did. regret that. "He stood got rail behind chair get. edged closer. He rail. thinking, hey, what lose? Let see back, knows, there's two-and-a-half feet marble wall. "Without looking safety what's least bit didn't move very towards fell me. fell. hit head. thud jackknifed backward railing courtroom. ."We enclave, busted head, tears streaming eyes respond fashion." 37-38. Petitioner sit near Through much remained overalls, crouching fetal position talking himself. Section provides, part: court, [for competency], determine, purposes evidence." 1175.4 amended 1991, prosecution. amendment alter text subsection merit failed timely request determination. 384 statute defines arrested brought rationally defense." 1175.1(1) (Supp. 1996). her opinion, view placing limited group permissible provided incentive cooperate information-gathering reliable 455. Oral Arg. 46-48. Courts often referred prisoner's (or insanity) incompetence, cases, sanity charge." 304, (1836). 1800 codified impanel treason, felony offense Lunatics Act, 1800, 40, Geo. 3, ch. 94, 2. although demonstrating 19th-century 447 (1992). Davies, K. 328, 329, 175 575, 575 (1853) (judge "[the prosecutor] call sane, capable pleading"); Ley's Case, Lewin 239, 240, 1026 (1828) ("`If cannot fit trial'"). Halsbury, Laws 403 (3d ed. 1955) ("Where empanelled [to defendant"). 236, 430 (1959) (explicitly rejecting suggestion trial). Given disagreement among bore unlikely weighty Podola tests "have followed said firmly law." App., 431. Braley, 102, 103 (1804), decided shortly ratified, [the accused] neglected free malice, neglect act God." instruction precursor "sane insane" disjunctive. Tyler, 443, 444 (1898) ("What mean sane"). Compare Ah Ying, Cal. 18, (1872) (jury "satisfied" conclusion). Tyler 654 (1896), instructive articulate phrase each told task "is sane", N.P., then P., 443; 655. Arnold, Iowa 481, 484 (1861) ("A impairment render probable not, devolve full, impartial trial"); McElvaine, 125 596, 608, 929, 933 (1891) (the "was familiar appearance sanity"). also, Crocker 435, 436 (1884); 1906). Several mention procedure determining competency. Y., N.E., 932 ("We Code Procedure radical mode proceedings"); French 67 706, 710 (Wis. 1896) ("The providing inquisition, insane, thereby incapacitated himself, substantially provision affirmance abundantly authorities"). concedes lower convincing. Brief Respondent 21-23. Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-56d(b) (1995); (1991); Cons. 7403(a) 1995); I. 40.1-5.3-3 1995). adoption Connecticut response Court's discuss infra, 20-21. Lackey 615 So. 145, 151-152 (Ala. 1992); McCarla 677 1268, 1272 (Alaska 1984); Penal Ann. 1369(f) (West 1982); Colo. Rev. 16-8-111(2) (1986); Diaz 508 861, 863 (Del. 1986); Flowers 353 1259, 1270 (Fla. 1978); Johnson 209 Ga. 514, 516, 433 717, 719 (1993); Haw. 704-404 704-411 Ill. Comp. 725, 1057-1058 (Ind. Rhode, 503 27, (Iowa 1993); Seminary, 165 La. 67, 72, 115 370, 372 (1927); Jolley 282 Md. 353, 365, 91, 98 (1967); Prater, 569, 573-574, 651 833, 837 Minn. Rule Proc. 20.01 Griffin 186, 191 (Miss. 1987); Zorzy, 136 H. 710, 714-715, 622 1217, 1219 Lambert, 275 J. Super. 125, 129, 645 1189, 1191 (1994); Chapman, 104 324, 721 392, Santos, Div. 73, 75, 349 439, 442 (1973); Heger, 326 855, 858 D. 2945.37 Nance, 446 349, 351 (S. 1996); Codified 23A-10A-6.1 (1988); (1911); Blacklock 820 882, 886 (Tex. 1991); Utah 77-15-5(10) Va. 19.2-169.1(E) Wash. 10.77.090 27-6A-2(b) Wis. 971.14(4)(b) (1985 Supp. Loomer 768 1042, 1045 (Wyo. 1989). unclear. statutes suggests, Ariz. 11.5 (1987 Mitchell 323 Ark. 116, 120, 913 264, 266 (1996); Idaho 18-212 (1987); Kan. 22-3302 Ky. 504.100 (Michie 1990); Me. Ann., 15, 101-B Mich. 330.2020 Clark, 546 455, 468 (Mo. 1976); Mont. 46-14-221 (1992 Neb. 29-1823 (1989); Nev. 178.415 15A-1002 Ore. 161.360-161.370 1994); Vt. 4817 (1974). See, Para(s) 5/104-11(c) 1994 (1979) (involuntary commitment); Woodby INS, 385 276, 285-286 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt 364 350, (denaturalization); Schneiderman 320 118, (1943) (denaturalization). 261 (1990), Akron Center Reproductive 502 contrary. prohibit Missouri terminate life-sustaining treatment receiving wish step taken. Cruzan, 280. reasoned decisionmaker surrogate 280-281, irreversible, Health unmarried, unemancipated minor woman sought obtain abortion notifying parent bypass notification case. approved largely ex parte. 515-516. Cronic, 466 648, 653 (1984). Jackson, regains Sir Solicitor-General William (who reigned 1689-1702), "there difference pretences realities, sana non memoria hath tryed matters, prisoners reaped benefit pretences, always discovered, rarely hear it." 478 (1816). Lake, 215, 222 (1855); 274 1860); 444. retarded nonviolent ncompetent necessarily commitment. note purport resolve contrary, Court, Chief Burger rules magnitude historically explicit protected designed exclude likelihood judgment." 423.

Classification Label: 3