Kansas v. Cheever (2013)
- Docket
- 12-609
- Decided
- 2013-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the state violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination by bringing in evidence from the court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant to rebut an affirmative defense based on mental incapacity? Conclusion: No. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the prosecution from introducing psychiatric evidence to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defense. To deny the prosecution that right would undermine the adversarial process, because the jury should hear both sides of any discussion of the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime. The Court also held that this ruling was in line with Fifth Amendment jurisprudence that does not allow a defendant to avoid cross-examination. When the defendant's mental state is at issue and the defense offers evidence through expert testimony, it may be rebutted by expert testimony from the prosecution.