Most Americans would argue that a cop killer should be put to death, which is what Scott D Cheever will face if he loses in the US Supreme Court. UNITED STATES. Scott D. Cheever and the State of Kansas argued before the United States Supreme Court on October 16, 2013. The question before the court was when a criminal defendant presents expert testimony that he does not did not have the mental state required to commit capital murder. law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant's use of methamphetamine, does the State violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege not to self -incriminate by rebutting the defendant's mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation. respondent? The answer is no, the United States Supreme Court should overturn the Kansas Supreme Court's decision because its Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The Kansas v. Cheever case occurred after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19. , 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at Cooper's home in rural Greenwood County, Kansas, to execute an arrest warrant for Scott Cheever when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever's arrest, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder, as well as various other drug charges and criminal firearm possession. Cheever was first tried in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just declared capital punishment unconstitutional and was then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense, saying he was so high on methamphetamines that he could not have premeditated the murder. In exchange, the court ordered a mental trial...... middle of paper......fict that went beyond temporary intoxication, it involved a mental state defense. Because this was a mental state defense and not a self-intoxication defense, the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived as stated in Buchanan V. Kentucky: When a defendant asserts a mental state defense and supports it with evidence, the defendant respectfully waives the Fifth Amendment privilege. to evidence from a court-ordered mental examination used to rebut the defense. Therefore, his psychiatric examination was not mandatory and the State had every right to refute the court-ordered examination. Also under the Fifth Amendment it clearly states "A defendant may waive Fifth Amendment privilege through tactical decisions or actions." » When Cheever chose to have an expert testify about his mental state, he tactically made the decision to waive his Fifth Amendment rights..