[1] On the first day of trial, Cooper's bizarre behavior (such as fleeing from his defense attorney, refusing to change his prison clothes because regular clothes "burned" him, and talking to himself while in the fetal position) induced the court to conduct a further competency hearing.

While expressing his uncertainty and not disagreeing with the psychologist, the judge ruled against Cooper and ordered the trial to proceed, finally opining: I think it's going to take smarter people than me to make a decision here.

[3]The trial proceeded with Cooper continuing to act in a bizarre manner and refusing to be near his attorney.

The Court held that the State may not proceed with a criminal trial when the defendant has demonstrated that he is more likely than not to be incompetent.

Requiring a higher standard of proof, that of "clear and convincing evidence", was too high a standard of proof for a defendant to demonstrate a need for a competency evaluation, increasing the possibility of error to a level "incompatible with the dictates of due process".

[5] Criminal defendants must be allowed to avoid trial if they prove incompetence by a "preponderance of the evidence.

[6] They concluded that this "demonstrates that the vast majority of jurisdictions remain persuaded that the heightened standard of proof imposed on the accused in Oklahoma is not necessary to vindicate the State's interest in prompt and orderly disposition of criminal cases.

As established in Dusky v. United States, a defendant has a fundamental right not to be put to trial unless he has "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding .