Kansas v.

Cheever On January 19, 2005, Greenwood County Sheriff Matthew Samuels entered the home of Darrell and Belinda Coopers in Hilltop, Kansas on a mission to arrest Scott D. Cheever for outstanding warrants. Upon entering the Coopers residence, Samuels witnessed Cheever, both Coopers, and two unspecified individuals producing and ingesting methamphetamines. Cheever proceeded to shoot and kill Matthews, and then shoot other police officers that came in as reinforcement. When Cheever was held on trial, he admitted to using methamphetamines and said that his mental capacity at the time of the shooting was limited as an effect and therefore should lessen his punishment. The Federal judge demanded that Cheever undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine his mental capacity, and when the jury found him guilty, Cheever was sentenced to death. However, the Kansas Supreme Court found the order of a psychiatric evaluation to be in violation of Cheevers 5th Amendment rights. The question presented to the Court at this time is whether or not the Court violated Cheevers 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination by demanding a psychiatric evaluation. When Kansas reenacted the death penalty in their state, this trial was moved from federal court to state court. There is a large difference between these courts as shown by Hertade v. California, Palko v. Connecticut, and Adamson v. California, generally, the State court does not give all the same rights a federal court gives. In this case, the federal court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Cheever. When this trial moved to state court, this order was nullified. In order to do a proper court ordered psychiatric evaluation, the State Court must demand its own

evaluation rather than proceed with, and use as evidence, a now irrelevant order. Using this evaluation represents an unconstitutional coalition of government forces, which show no respect to the very system it seeks to protect. In Estelle v. Smith, the court ordered a competency examination of the defendant, Smith. The defense counsel had not raised an issue of competency or sanity and was unaware that the examination was ordered. The court appointed psychiatrist interviewed the defendant and provided a report to the trial court in which he concluded the defendant was competent to stand trial. Then, during the penalty phase of the defendant's capital trial, the State called the psychiatrist to testify as to the defendant's future dangerousness, which is one of three factors that the State was required to establish to obtain the death penalty under Texas law. The psychiatrist's testimony included his conclusions that the defendant was a severe sociopath with no regard for property or human life, that he would continue his criminal behavior if given the opportunity, and that he had no remorse for his actions. In Smith, the court found that using the psychiatrists competency examination to determine the dangerousness of the defendant violated the Fifth Amendment due to the fact that the defendant was not aware that anything in the examination could be used against him in trial. The competency test, in nature, is neutral and used solely to determine whether or not the defendant is mentally capable of being tried. The Court emphasized that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by an order requiring a criminal defendant to submit to a competency examination for the limited, neutral purpose of determining competency to stand

trial. However, the Fifth Amendment is implicated when the court uses the psychiatric competency examination in trial for something other than proving the defendants competency, such as attempting to establish an element necessary to obtain a verdict of death (dangerousness). Because the State used [Smith's] own statements, unwittingly made without an awareness that he was assisting the State's efforts to obtain the death penalty[,] the Fifth Amendment privilege applied. The Court observed that there would have been no Fifth Amendment issue if the psychiatrist's findings had been used solely for the purpose of determining competency. In the case presented, the mental examination was ordered because Cheever had raised the possibility that he would assert a defense based on mental condition. The use of Cheevers mental condition by the defense was not in any way confirmed by the court, yet the court found it necessary to proceed with the evaluation. Without a set neutral goal, like the determination of competency in Smith, the government is not able to use the information obtained in the evaluation. This is due to the fact that unless the court appointed mental evaluation is done in response to an evaluation done by the defense that is to be used in court, the court cannot utilize the information disclosed in the evaluation without a specific neutral goal. In this case, Cheevers Fifth Amendment right is violated because he is unaware of what part of the mental evaluation will be used in court and in which way this evaluation will be used. This uncertainty on the part of the government makes it nearly impossible for Cheever to avoid unintentional self-incrimination, which is completely unconstitutional.

The lower court found that there where several flaws in the jury instructions in the trial of Cheever. This was not answered adequately in this arguments by the state. With all of the precedents considered and the flaws in the jury instructions, the decision of the lower court stands.