violate the Due Process Clause is further bolstered by the United States Supreme Court decisions in Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S. Ct. 1845, 32 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1972), and Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 116 S. Ct. 1373, 134 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1996). In Jackson, the Court approved of the detention of a criminal defendant deemed incompetent, but limited that detention to “the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future.” 406 U.S. at 738. In Medina, the Court held that a state may, consistent with the Due Process Clause, impose on the defendant the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a lack of competency. 505 U.S. at 439, 450-51; cf. Cooper, 517 U.S. at 363 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Supreme Court has, at least
holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that the due process clause prohibits the trial of a person who is incompetent holding that the due process clause prohibits states from requiring defendants to prove their incompetency by clear and convincing evidence holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard holding that oklahomas requirement that a defendant prove his incompetency by clear and convincing evidence violated due process