Cooper v. Oklahoma

ML
by Madison Landstrom6 views·Updated Apr 17, 2022
Create your own

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

  1. Hello everyone.
  2. My name is Madison Lance Drum and I will be presenting
  3. a case brief summary of cooper v Oklahoma for forensic psychology.
  4. Dr Jeffrey Gray's class.
  5. The first section of this case brief summary is the nature and the facts of this case.
  6. This case occurred in 1996 and it involved
  7. the competency and burden of proof required.
  8. Um for a defendant.
  9. The facts of the case.
  10. In 1989,
  11. Byron Keith Cooper was charged for the murder of
  12. 86 year old hailed Shepherd during a Blur Gallery.
  13. He was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to the death penalty.
  14. The judge worried that cooper was engaging in malingering behavior when he began
  15. showing signs of incompetency and insanity.
  16. He acted out by claiming his civilian clothes, burned him
  17. and lying in the fetal position.
  18. The judge quoted
  19. anybody that's not like us is not normal
  20. so I don't think normal is a proper definition
  21. that we are to use with incompetence.
  22. The original judge decided that cooper was competent
  23. because there was no clear and convincing proof that he was insane.
  24. His competency arose in four different instances.
  25. The first
  26. instance where his competency
  27. evaluation arose
  28. Um was when he was sent to a mental health facility for three months.
  29. Two different psychologists there stated different opinions.
  30. One claimed he was competent and one claimed he was incompetent.
  31. The judge decided to continue with the trial
  32. because of the two differences of opinions.
  33. The second instance where his competency was questioned was
  34. after the closing of the tree pre trial,
  35. cooper began behaving oddly
  36. but the judge decided to continue on with the trial.
  37. The third instance arose when cooper was behaving
  38. bizarrely on the first day of trial.
  39. So the judge ordered a competency hearing.
  40. The experts stated that cooper was indeed incompetent to communicate,
  41. But with council
  42. he could be treated in six weeks.
  43. The judge decided to continue on with the trial
  44. um against the opinions of the experts.
  45. The 4th instance arose after
  46. Cooper was found guilty.
  47. His counsel attempted one last time to file for a mistrial.
  48. The mistrial filing was denied
  49. um and then his attorney took the case to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
  50. The Court of Criminal Appeals
  51. um
  52. had one issue to consider
  53. and the question was whether or not Byron cooper
  54. was incompetent to stand trial,
  55. unable to understand the charges against him
  56. and incapable to assist his defense counsel
  57. regarding his ability to stand trial and understand his charges.
  58. The holding of the appellate court was that yes,
  59. cooper was indeed incompetent to stand trial
  60. and to understand the charges against him.
  61. The rationale for this holding um was decided because the correct
  62. burden of proof was not used in the original court.
  63. The Oklahoma court was trying to use the burden
  64. of clear and convincing proof for cooper's incompetency.
  65. The appellate court decided that the burden of proof should be no higher
  66. than the preponderance of evidence for declaring incompetence
  67. as for cooper's ability to assist his counsel.
  68. The holding was that yes, cooper was incompetent and unable to assist his counsel.
  69. The rationale for this holding um was declared due to
  70. the violation of Cooper's 14th amendment right of due process.
  71. His inability to communicate with counsel in the court
  72. limited his rights.
  73. These rights that are needed with proper communication include
  74. pleading guilty,
  75. waving his privilege against compulsory self incrimination
  76. by taking the witness stand or waiving his rights
  77. to a jury trial or to cross examine witnesses.
  78. His rights were stifled due to his lack of communication and due to this,
  79. he was unable to have a fair trial and ruling.
  80. Cooper v Oklahoma had a large impact on forensic psychology.
  81. This case changed the level of evidence and
  82. needed and the proof for competency evaluations.
  83. Originally psychologists only needed preponderance of
  84. the evidence which claims that there
  85. is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.
  86. The state of Oklahoma was trying to use
  87. clear and convincing evidence which is a much higher
  88. level of proof for competency.
  89. The majority of the states in the United
  90. States were using preponderance of the evidence for
  91. insanity and competency evaluations. So after this court case was reversed.
  92. Um Oklahoma became another one of the states that now
  93. uses preponderance of evidence instead of clear and convincing proof.
  94. The two psychologists who originally evaluated cooper
  95. had different opinions um once stated that he was competent
  96. and one stated that he was incompetent to proceed to trial
  97. because of these different opinions of the experts.
  98. The original judge decided to go along with the trial proceedings
  99. Due to the mixed opinions by these two experts.
  100. Um beginning in 1996, um different evaluations and tests were created um
  101. so it had a higher level of accuracy
  102. in evaluating individuals so that no mixed opinions
  103. um would be in place in the court.
  104. The next section in this case brief summary is
  105. the impact it had on the criminal justice system.
  106. Cooper V Oklahoma established a fair and efficient judicial system.
  107. Oklahoma became another state
  108. that only needed preponderance of evidence. 50% proof
  109. for competency hearings.
  110. The higher standard of proof of clear and convincing
  111. evidence questioned the criminal justice system and its integrity.
  112. Um
  113. No individual who are no independent should have to face serious repercussions,
  114. um especially the death penalty of a crime that if they cannot have a fair trial,
  115. um if any rights are violated, um
  116. it would be an unfair trial.
  117. So cooper the Oklahoma was a very monumental case in the United States history.
  118. Um It questioned competency,
  119. mental health facilities and proper evaluation of a defendant.
  120. Thank you so much for listening to this case.
  121. Brief summary of cooper be Oklahoma, thank you