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 . 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 affirmatively presents expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer because of the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant's methamphetamine use, the State violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting Defendant's mental state defense with evidence from a defendant court-ordered mental state evaluation? The answer is no, the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn the Kansas Supreme Court's decision because his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. The case, Kansas v. Cheever, arose after Scott D. Cheever killed Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19. , 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural area of ​​Greenwood County, Kansas, to serve an arrest warrant for Scott Cheever when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of a firearm. Cheever was tried for the first time 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 by arguing that he was so high on methamphetamine that he could not have premeditated the murder. In exchange the court ordered a mental... half paper......ficit that went beyond temporary intoxication, involving a defense of mental state. Because this was a mental state defense and not a voluntary 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 waives Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to evidence from a court-ordered mental examination used to rebut the defense. Therefore his psychiatric examination was not mandatory and the State was completely within its rights to refute the court-ordered examination. Also according to the Fifth Amendment it clearly states "A defendant may waive his Fifth Amendment privilege by tactical decisions or actions." When Cheever chose to call upon an expert to testify about his mental state, he tactically chose to waive his Fifth Amendment rights amendment.