decisions delineate the basic nature and scope of what due process requires under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. As a threshold matter, the Supreme Court has held that a state court need only make adequate procedures available to a criminal defendant where there is a sufficient doubt as., to the defendant’s competence. See Drope, 420 U.S. at 180, 95 S.Ct. 896 (finding evidence before the state court “created a sufficient doubt of [petitioner’s] competence to stand trial to require further inquiry on the question”). Where there is a sufficient doubt as to the defendant’s competence, the state must then afford the defendant “a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he is not competent to stand trial.” Medina, 505 U.S. at 451, 112 S.Ct. 2572; see also id. at 449, 112 S.Ct. 2572 (<HOLDING>). IV. An Unreasonable Application While the
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 defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process holding that while the state must provide a defendant access to procedures for making a competency evaluation it need not shoulder the burden of proof in convincing the trier of fact that the defendant is competent