cooper
oklahoma
argued
january
decided
april
page
oklahoma
law
presumes
criminal
defendant
competent
stand
trial
unless
proves
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
applying
standard
judge
found
petitioner
cooper
competent
separate
occasions
trial
first
degree
murder
despite
bizarre
behavior
conflicting
expert
testimony
issue
affirming
conviction
death
sentence
criminal
appeals
rejected
argument
state
presumption
competence
combined
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
placed
onerous
burden
violate
due
process
held
oklahoma
procedural
rule
allows
state
try
defendant
likely
incompetent
violates
due
process
pp
criminal
trial
incompetent
defendant
violates
due
process
medina
california
establishes
state
may
presume
defendant
competent
require
prove
incompetence
preponderance
evidence
presumption
offend
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
affects
outcome
narrow
class
cases
evidence
defendant
competent
strong
evidence
incompetent
case
however
presents
quite
different
question
whether
state
may
proceed
criminal
trial
defendant
shown
likely
incompetent
pp
oklahoma
rule
roots
historical
practice
early
english
american
cases
suggest
common
law
standard
page
ii
proof
preponderance
evidence
standard
currently
used
federal
courts
indicates
vast
majority
jurisdictions
remain
persuaded
oklahoma
heightened
standard
necessary
vindicate
state
interest
prompt
orderly
disposition
criminal
cases
application
standard
protective
defendant
rights
oklahoma
rule
supports
conclusion
heightened
standard
offends
deeply
rooted
principle
justice
pp
oklahoma
rule
exhibit
fundamental
fairness
operation
erroneous
determination
competence
dire
consequences
defendant
already
demonstrated
likely
incompetent
threatening
basic
fairness
trial
defendant
inability
communicate
effectively
counsel
may
leave
unable
exercise
rights
deemed
essential
fair
trial
choosing
plead
guilty
waiving
privilege
compulsory
taking
witness
stand
waiving
rights
jury
trial
witnesses
make
myriad
smaller
decisions
concerning
course
defense
risks
outweigh
state
interest
efficient
operation
criminal
justice
system
difficulty
ascertaining
whether
defendant
incompetent
malingering
may
make
appropriate
place
burden
proof
justify
additional
onus
especially
high
standard
proof
pp
although
normally
within
state
power
establish
procedures
laws
given
effect
power
regulate
procedural
burdens
subject
proscription
due
process
clause
procedures
sufficiently
protect
fundamental
constitutional
right
patterson
new
york
distinguished
decision
herein
complete
accord
ruling
addington
texas
due
process
requires
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
proof
involuntary
civil
commitment
proceedings
ruling
protects
individual
fundamental
liberty
interest
ruling
case
safeguards
fundamental
right
stand
trial
incompetent
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
unanimous
cooper
oklahoma
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
oklahoma
defendant
criminal
prosecution
presumed
competent
stand
trial
unless
proves
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
okla
tit
standard
defendant
may
put
trial
even
though
likely
incompetent
question
address
case
whether
application
standard
petitioner
violated
right
due
process
fourteenth
amendment
petitioner
charged
brutal
killing
man
course
burglary
oklahoma
jury
found
guilty
murder
recommended
punishment
death
trial
imposed
death
penalty
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
affirmed
conviction
sentence
petitioner
competence
focus
significant
attention
trial
five
separate
occasions
judge
considered
whether
petitioner
ability
understand
charges
assist
defense
counsel
first
occasion
pretrial
judge
relied
opinion
clinical
psychologist
employed
state
cooper
oklahoma
find
petitioner
incompetent
based
determination
committed
petitioner
state
mental
health
facility
treatment
upon
petitioner
release
hospital
three
months
later
trial
judge
heard
testimony
concerning
petitioner
competence
two
psychologists
experts
expressed
conflicting
opinions
regarding
petitioner
ability
participate
defense
judge
resolved
dispute
petitioner
ordering
proceed
trial
close
pretrial
hearing
held
one
week
trial
scheduled
begin
lead
defense
attorney
raised
issue
petitioner
competence
third
time
counsel
advised
petitioner
behaving
oddly
refusing
communicate
defense
counsel
opined
serious
matter
faking
app
listening
counsel
concerns
however
judge
declined
revisit
earlier
determination
petitioner
competent
stand
trial
petitioner
competence
addressed
fourth
time
first
day
trial
petitioner
bizarre
behavior
prompted
conduct
competency
hearing
judge
observed
petitioner
heard
testimony
several
lay
witnesses
third
psychologist
petitioner
cooper
oklahoma
expert
concluded
petitioner
presently
incompetent
unable
communicate
effectively
counsel
probably
achieve
competence
within
six
weeks
treated
aggressively
stating
dispute
psychologist
diagnosis
trial
judge
ruled
petitioner
holding
however
voiced
uncertainty
well
think
used
expression
past
normal
like
us
anybody
like
us
normal
think
normal
proper
definition
use
incompetence
shirtsleeve
opinion
cooper
normal
say
competent
something
else
know
things
considered
suppose
possible
client
predicament
cooper
oklahoma
ca
help
defense
still
incompetent
suppose
possibility
think
going
take
smarter
people
make
decision
going
say
believe
carried
burden
clear
convincing
evidence
incompetency
going
say
going
go
trial
criminal
appeals
petitioner
contended
oklahoma
presumption
competence
combined
statutory
requirement
criminal
defendant
establish
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
okla
tit
placed
onerous
burden
violate
right
due
process
law
appellate
rejected
argument
cooper
oklahoma
noting
difficult
determine
whether
defendant
malingering
given
inexactness
uncertainty
attached
competency
proceedings
held
standard
justified
state
great
interest
assuring
citizens
thorough
speedy
judicial
process
truly
incompetent
criminal
defendant
attorneys
experts
prove
incompetency
relative
ease
granted
certiorari
review
criminal
appeals
conclusion
application
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
violate
due
process
ii
one
questions
existence
fundamental
right
petitioner
invokes
repeatedly
consistently
recognized
criminal
trial
incompetent
defendant
violates
due
process
medina
california
drope
missouri
pate
robinson
significance
right
open
dispute
justice
kennedy
recently
emphasized
competence
stand
trial
rudimentary
upon
depends
main
part
rights
deemed
essential
fair
trial
including
right
effective
assistance
counsel
rights
summon
confront
witnesses
right
testify
one
behalf
remain
silent
without
penalty
drope
missouri
riggins
nevada
opinion
concurring
judgment
cooper
oklahoma
recent
decision
medina
california
establishes
state
may
presume
defendant
competent
require
shoulder
burden
proving
incompetence
preponderance
evidence
reaching
conclusion
held
relevant
inquiry
whether
presumption
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
quoting
patterson
new
york
contrasted
deep
roots
heritage
underlying
prohibition
trying
incompetent
absence
settled
tradition
concerning
allocation
burden
proof
competency
proceeding
conclusion
presumption
competence
offends
recognized
principle
fundamental
fairness
rested
part
fact
procedural
rule
affects
outcome
narrow
class
cases
evidence
equipoise
evidence
defendant
competent
strong
evidence
cooper
oklahoma
incompetent
question
address
today
quite
different
question
posed
medina
petitioner
claim
requires
us
consider
whether
state
may
proceed
criminal
trial
defendant
demonstrated
likely
incompetent
oklahoma
contend
may
require
defendant
prove
incompetence
beyond
reasonable
doubt
state
maintains
however
clear
convincing
standard
provides
reasonable
accommodation
opposing
interests
state
defendant
persuaded
traditional
modern
practice
importance
constitutional
interest
stake
state
argument
must
rejected
iii
historical
practice
probative
whether
procedural
rule
characterized
fundamental
medina
case
unlike
medina
indication
rule
oklahoma
seeks
defend
roots
prior
practice
indeed
appears
rule
significantly
favorable
defendant
long
consistent
application
cooper
oklahoma
beginning
late
century
cases
appear
provide
inkling
proper
standard
king
frith
tr
example
instructed
jury
diligently
inquire
whether
john
frith
prisoner
bar
sound
mind
understanding
years
later
jurors
received
nearly
identical
admonition
queen
goode
ad
eng
shall
diligently
inquire
true
presentment
make
whether
john
goode
insane
eng
similarly
king
pritchard
car
eng
empaneled
jury
consider
whether
cooper
oklahoma
prisoner
mute
malice
secondly
whether
plead
indictment
thirdly
whether
sufficient
intellect
comprehend
course
proceedings
trial
ibid
see
also
king
dyson
car
eng
queen
southey
eng
queen
berry
ibid
authorities
still
speaking
less
clearly
might
wish
instructive
phrasing
inquiry
simple
disjunctive
frith
goode
pritchard
suggest
traditional
practice
required
jury
determine
whether
defendant
likely
incompetent
nothing
jury
instructions
cases
bear
interpretation
clear
convincing
standard
cases
contain
indication
use
preponderance
standard
represented
departure
earlier
practice
cooper
oklahoma
modern
english
authority
confirms
interpretation
early
cases
applying
preponderance
standard
relying
principles
laid
number
cases
including
pritchard
king
dyson
car
eng
queen
podola
crim
app
ruled
contention
accused
insane
put
forward
defence
contested
prosecution
judgment
burden
upon
defence
satisfying
jury
accused
insanity
case
criminal
cases
onus
proof
rests
upon
defence
onus
discharged
jury
satisfied
balance
probabilities
accused
insanity
made
cooper
oklahoma
cooper
oklahoma
contemporary
practice
demonstrates
vast
majority
jurisdictions
remain
persuaded
heightened
standard
proof
imposed
accused
oklahoma
necessary
vindicate
state
interest
prompt
orderly
disposition
criminal
cases
presently
require
criminal
defendant
prove
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
none
remaining
jurisdictions
imposes
heavy
burden
defendant
indeed
number
place
burden
cooper
oklahoma
defendant
rather
require
prosecutor
prove
defendant
competence
stand
cooper
oklahoma
trial
question
competency
credibly
raised
situation
different
federal
congress
directed
accused
federal
prosecution
must
prove
incompetence
preponderance
evidence
application
standard
protective
defendant
rights
oklahoma
clear
convincing
evidence
rule
supports
conclusion
heightened
standard
offends
principle
justice
deeply
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
medina
california
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
turn
next
consideration
whether
rule
exhibits
fundamental
fairness
operation
quoting
dowling
iv
contemporary
historical
procedures
fully
consistent
evaluation
risks
inherent
oklahoma
practice
requiring
defendant
prove
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
addington
texas
explained
function
standard
proof
concept
embodied
due
process
clause
realm
factfinding
instruct
factfinder
concerning
degree
confidence
society
thinks
correctness
factual
conclusions
particular
type
adjudication
winship
harlan
concurring
cooper
oklahoma
far
jealously
guard
ing
jacob
new
york
city
incompetent
criminal
defendant
fundamental
right
stand
trial
oklahoma
practice
requiring
defendant
prove
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
imposes
significant
risk
erroneous
determination
cooper
oklahoma
defendant
competent
medina
found
comparable
risk
presumption
affect
narrow
class
cases
evidence
either
side
equally
balanced
state
provides
defendant
access
procedures
making
competency
evaluation
stated
basis
holding
due
process
requires
state
assume
burden
vindicating
defendant
constitutional
right
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
competent
stand
trial
medina
california
unlike
presumption
issue
medina
however
oklahoma
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
affects
class
cases
defendant
already
demonstrated
likely
incompetent
defendant
consequences
erroneous
determination
competence
dire
lacks
ability
communicate
effectively
counsel
may
unable
exercise
rights
deemed
essential
fair
trial
riggins
nevada
kennedy
concurring
judgment
making
profound
choice
whether
plead
guilty
godinez
moran
defendant
proceeds
trial
ordinarily
decide
whether
waive
privilege
compulsory
boykin
alabama
taking
witness
stand
option
available
may
decide
whether
waive
right
trial
jury
ibid
consultation
counsel
may
decide
whether
waive
right
confront
accusers
declining
witnesses
prosecution
ibid
cooper
oklahoma
comparison
defendant
interest
injury
state
opposite
error
conclusion
defendant
incompetent
fact
malingering
modest
sure
error
imposes
expense
state
treasury
frustrates
state
interest
prompt
disposition
criminal
charges
error
subject
correction
subsequent
proceeding
state
may
detain
incompetent
defendant
reasonable
period
time
necessary
determine
whether
substantial
probability
attain
competence
foreseeable
future
jackson
indiana
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
correctly
observed
inexactness
uncertainty
characterize
competency
proceedings
may
make
difficult
determine
whether
defendant
incompetent
malingering
presume
however
unusual
even
artful
malingerer
feign
incompetence
successfully
period
time
professional
care
regard
worth
reiterating
four
jurisdictions
currently
consider
necessary
impose
criminal
cooper
oklahoma
defendant
burden
proving
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
moreover
reason
believe
art
dissimilation
new
eighteenth
nineteenth
century
courts
example
warned
jurors
charged
making
competency
determinations
may
great
fraud
matter
king
dyson
car
eng
quoting
hale
pleas
crown
reproach
justice
guilty
man
postponed
trial
upon
feigned
condition
mind
inability
aid
defense
chisolm
although
recognized
risk
early
authorities
resort
heightened
burden
proof
competency
proceedings
see
part
iii
supra
fundamentally
difficulty
ascertaining
truth
lies
may
make
appropriate
place
burden
proof
proponent
issue
justify
additional
onus
especially
high
standard
proof
chisolm
continued
likewise
reproach
justice
institutions
human
compelled
go
trial
time
sufficiently
possession
mental
faculties
enable
make
rational
proper
defense
latter
grievous
error
former
since
one
case
individual
go
unwhipped
justice
great
safeguards
law
adopts
punishment
crime
upholding
justice
rudely
invaded
tribunal
whose
sacred
duty
uphold
law
integrity
cooper
oklahoma
oklahoma
makes
two
additional
arguments
support
procedural
rule
warrant
discussion
first
oklahoma
correctly
reminds
us
normally
within
power
state
establish
procedures
laws
given
effect
including
related
burden
producing
evidence
burden
persuasion
see
patterson
new
york
patterson
upheld
new
york
requirement
prosecution
murder
defendant
must
bear
burden
proving
affirmative
defense
extreme
emotional
disturbance
order
reduce
crime
manslaughter
observing
rule
consistent
practice
held
due
process
clause
put
new
york
choice
abandoning
statutory
defenses
undertaking
disprove
existence
order
convict
crime
cooper
oklahoma
otherwise
within
constitutional
powers
sanction
substantial
punishment
although
found
violation
patterson
noted
state
power
regulate
procedural
burdens
subject
proscription
due
process
clause
offends
principle
justice
rooted
traditions
conscience
people
ranked
fundamental
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
case
involves
rule
unlike
patterson
concerned
procedures
proving
statutory
defense
consider
whether
state
procedures
guaranteeing
fundamental
constitutional
right
sufficiently
protective
right
deep
roots
fundamental
character
defendant
right
stand
trial
likely
lacks
capacity
understand
nature
proceedings
communicate
effectively
counsel
mandate
constitutional
protection
finally
oklahoma
suggests
decision
addington
texas
held
due
process
requires
clear
convincing
standard
proof
involuntary
civil
commitment
proceeding
supports
imposition
rule
competency
proceedings
argument
unpersuasive
commitment
competency
proceedings
address
entirely
different
substantive
issues
although
opportunity
consider
outer
limits
state
authority
civilly
commit
unwilling
individual
donaldson
decision
donaldson
makes
clear
due
process
requires
minimum
showing
person
mentally
ill
either
poses
danger
others
incapable
surviving
safely
freedom
test
competence
stand
trial
contrast
whether
defendant
present
ability
understand
cooper
oklahoma
charges
communicate
effectively
defense
counsel
dusky
even
uphold
oklahoma
imposition
clear
convincing
evidence
rule
competency
proceedings
comparable
standards
two
proceedings
guarantee
parallel
results
importantly
decision
today
complete
accord
basis
ruling
addington
cases
concern
proper
protection
fundamental
rights
circumstances
state
proposes
take
drastic
action
individual
requirement
grounds
civil
commitment
shown
clear
convincing
evidence
protects
individual
fundamental
interest
liberty
prohibition
requiring
criminal
defendant
demonstrate
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
safeguards
fundamental
right
stand
trial
incompetent
oklahoma
procedural
rule
allows
state
put
trial
defendant
likely
incompetent
rule
incompatible
dictates
due
process
vi
foregoing
reasons
judgment
reversed
case
remanded
oklahoma
criminal
appeals
proceedings
inconsistent
cooper
oklahoma
opinion
ordered
footnotes
argument
close
proceeding
defense
counsel
reminded
incident
occurred
petitioner
testimony
every
time
get
close
space
seated
cooper
oklahoma
little
witness
enclave
stand
get
away
far
back
give
little
space
approached
every
side
except
approached
front
yesterday
approach
front
last
thing
regret
stood
got
far
back
rail
behind
witness
chair
get
edged
closer
got
far
back
got
rail
got
rail
thinking
hey
lose
let
see
go
back
knows
space
feet
behind
rail
marble
wall
without
looking
safety
looking
behind
moved
least
bit
move
far
towards
fell
get
away
fell
hit
head
thud
marble
jackknifed
backward
railing
marble
heard
back
courtroom
got
back
witness
enclave
busted
head
tears
streaming
eyes
respond
normal
fashion
app
petitioner
communicate
sit
near
defense
counsel
trial
much
proceedings
remained
prison
overalls
crouching
fetal
position
talking
section
provides
relevant
part
hearing
application
determination
competency
shall
determine
clear
convincing
evidence
person
incompetent
person
shall
presumed
competent
purposes
allocation
burden
proof
burden
going
forward
evidence
section
amended
pretrial
period
petitioner
prosecution
amendment
alter
text
subsection
indeed
right
stand
trial
incompetent
cooper
oklahoma
sufficiently
important
merit
protection
even
defendant
failed
make
timely
request
competency
determination
see
pate
robinson
oklahoma
statute
defines
competence
present
ability
person
arrested
charged
crime
understand
nature
charges
proceedings
brought
effectively
rationally
assist
defense
okla
tit
supp
concurring
opinion
justice
expressed
view
placing
burden
defendant
limited
group
cases
permissible
provided
defendant
incentive
cooperate
process
necessary
reliable
competency
determination
medina
tr
oral
arg
courts
often
referred
prisoner
insanity
present
insanity
rather
incompetence
even
proceeding
concerned
defendant
competence
stand
trial
beginning
earliest
cases
issue
sanity
competency
hearing
whether
prisoner
sufficient
understanding
comprehend
nature
trial
make
proper
defence
charge
king
pritchard
car
eng
england
codified
rule
impanel
jury
determine
whether
defendant
charged
treason
murder
felony
offense
competent
stand
trial
criminal
lunatics
act
geo
ch
indeed
although
medina
concluded
permissible
state
require
defendant
shoulder
burden
demonstrating
incompetence
noted
english
authorities
placed
burden
prosecutor
competence
put
issue
medina
california
see
queen
davies
car
eng
judge
ruled
prosecutor
begin
call
witnesses
show
prisoner
sane
capable
pleading
ley
case
lewin
eng
doubt
prisoner
sanity
say
fit
state
put
upon
trial
see
also
halsbury
laws
england
ed
jury
empanelled
determine
competency
onus
prosecution
prove
sanity
defendant
see
queen
podola
crim
app
explicitly
rejecting
cooper
oklahoma
suggestion
prosecutor
must
prove
defendant
competence
stand
trial
given
disagreement
among
english
courts
concerning
party
bore
burden
proof
unlikely
cases
burden
placed
defendant
burden
weighty
clear
convincing
evidence
podola
opined
tests
laid
pritchard
followed
often
may
said
firmly
embodied
law
crim
commonwealth
braley
mass
case
decided
shortly
constitution
ratified
instructed
jury
consider
whether
accused
neglected
refused
plead
indictment
murder
free
malice
whether
neglect
act
god
instruction
may
precursor
sane
insane
disjunctive
see
also
state
tyler
ohio
mean
preponderance
evidence
accused
must
show
time
trial
probably
sane
compare
people
ah
ying
cal
jury
find
defendant
presently
insane
satisfied
evidence
supporting
conclusion
tyler
state
ohio
instructive
concerning
proper
interpretation
authorities
articulate
standard
proof
phrase
inquiry
disjunctive
case
jury
told
task
determine
whether
accused
sane
tyler
ohio
see
also
ohio
explicitly
instructed
defendant
bore
burden
proof
preponderance
evidence
tyler
ohio
ohio
see
also
state
arnold
iowa
doubt
must
raised
whether
time
mental
impairment
cooper
oklahoma
render
probable
prisoner
far
may
devolve
upon
full
fair
impartial
trial
people
mcelvaine
familiar
appearance
conduct
prisoner
period
trial
sufficient
grounds
judge
probability
present
sanity
see
also
crocker
state
chisolm
sd
several
early
cases
explicitly
mention
roots
state
statutory
procedure
determining
competency
see
people
mcelvaine
think
code
criminal
procedure
made
radical
change
mode
procedure
character
competency
proceedings
french
state
statute
providing
inquisition
probability
accused
time
trial
insane
thereby
incapacitated
act
determine
whether
insane
substantially
provision
affirmance
power
common
law
cases
abundantly
appears
authorities
oklahoma
concedes
early
common
law
statutory
decisions
employed
standard
proof
lower
clear
convincing
see
brief
respondent
stat
okla
tit
cons
stat
supp
laws
supp
adoption
clear
convincing
evidence
standard
oklahoma
connecticut
may
response
decision
addington
texas
discuss
addington
infra
see
lackey
state
crim
app
cooper
oklahoma
mccarla
state
alaska
app
cal
penal
code
ann
west
rev
stat
diaz
state
del
flowers
state
app
johnson
state
app
haw
rev
stat
comp
ch
montano
state
ind
state
rhode
iowa
app
state
seminary
la
jolley
state
md
commonwealth
prater
mass
rule
crim
proc
griffin
state
miss
state
zorzy
state
lambert
super
state
chapman
people
santos
app
div
state
heger
ohio
rev
code
ann
state
nance
codified
laws
jordan
state
blacklock
state
tex
app
utah
code
ann
code
ann
rev
code
code
stat
supp
loomer
state
wyo
burden
imposed
remaining
unclear
nothing
competency
statutes
case
law
suggests
however
defendant
bears
burden
proving
incompetence
clear
convincing
evidence
see
rule
crim
proc
supp
mitchell
state
ark
idaho
code
stat
ann
rev
stat
ann
michie
rev
stat
tit
supp
comp
laws
state
clark
mo
app
mont
code
ann
supp
neb
rev
stat
rev
stat
stat
rev
stat
supp
stat
tit
see
haw
rev
stat
comp
ch
codified
laws
stat
supp
supp
ii
see
also
addington
involuntary
civil
commitment
woodby
ins
deportation
chaunt
denaturalization
schneiderman
denaturalization
opinions
cruzan
director
mo
dept
health
ohio
akron
center
reproductive
health
contrary
cruzan
held
due
process
clause
prohibit
missouri
requiring
third
party
seeks
terminate
treatment
demonstrate
clear
convincing
evidence
incompetent
person
receiving
treatment
wish
step
taken
cruzan
reasoned
heightened
standard
proof
permissible
decisionmaker
surrogate
incompetent
individual
consequences
erroneous
decision
irreversible
akron
center
reproductive
health
upheld
ohio
statute
required
unmarried
unemancipated
minor
woman
sought
obtain
abortion
without
notifying
parent
prove
clear
convincing
evidence
judicial
bypass
notification
requirement
appropriate
case
approved
heightened
standard
proof
case
largely
proceeding
issue
ex
parte
cronic
jackson
defendant
regains
competence
found
malingering
state
may
proceed
trial
sir
john
hawles
king
william
iii
reigned
noted
great
difference
pretences
realities
sana
non
sana
memoria
hath
often
tryed
capital
matters
prisoners
reaped
little
benefit
pretences
always
discovered
rarely
hear
hawles
remarks
trial
charles
bateman
tr
see
also
people
lake
state
harris
state
tyler
ohio
example
mentally
retarded
defendant
accused
nonviolent
crime
may
found
incompetent
stand
trial
necessarily
subject
involuntary
civil
commitment
note
addington
purport
resolve
question
concerning
rights
defendant
criminal
proceeding
contrary
opinion
chief
justice
burger
contrasted
appropriate
standard
civil
commitment
proceedings
rules
applicable
criminal
cases
interests
defendant
magnitude
historically
without
explicit
constitutional
requirement
protected
standards
proof
designed
exclude
nearly
possible
likelihood
erroneous
judgment