decision, affirmed the circuit court and Guck petitioned this court for review. This court accepted review of the waiver issue only. Thus, we do not review the portion of the court of appeals' decision discussing Guck's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. "It has long been the rule of Anglo-American law that an incompetent person should not be forced to face the judicial process during such incompetency." State ex rel. Matalik v. Schubert, 57 Wis. 2d 315, 321, 204 N.W.2d 13 (1973). As long as a State affords a criminal defendant on whose behalf a plea of incompetence is asserted a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he is not competent to stand trial, a State is free to establish its own procedures for determining competency. See Medina v. California, 112 S.Ct. 2572 (1992) (<HOLDING>). In Wisconsin, sec. 971.14, Stats, governs the
holding that the reviewing court correctly places the burden of proof on the plaintiff seeking amendment holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding that california could establish a presumption of competence and place the burden of proof on a defendant seeking to prove incompetence