Kansas v. Cheever (12-609)

argument 12-609

Kansas v. Cheever

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional issue does Kansas v. Cheever raise about the Fifth Amendment and mental‑health evidence?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twelve six oh nine, Kansas

Kenneth T. Schmidt 0:05

versus Cheever. General Schmidt? Please the court. Once the respondent made the trial decision to make his mental status an issue and then supported his argument by introducing as evidence the testimony of a mental health expert who had examined the defendant. He no longer could properly claim the protection of the Fifth Amendment to avoid light-kind rebuttal by another court-appointed expert. When the Kansas Supreme Court allowed the respondent to do just that, it committed constitutional error. and should be reversed for three reasons. First, this Court's cases point to the opposite conclusion. Second, allowing this mental for mental expert rebuttal is consistent with this Court's precedent, with the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and it is fair.

Kenneth T. Schmidt 0:59

And third, a holding that is consistent with the Kansas Supreme Court's rule would have the effect of undermining the truth-seeking function of the trial by excluding relevant evidence from the jury, especially in the mental health context where the jury has to make an assessment based on the process. Of course, that that would be true. The last would be true.

Samuel A. Alito Jr. 1:19

even if the defendant had not sought to introduce expert evidence of his own, right?

Kenneth T. Schmidt 1:27

I i i that would be true, Your Honor. We're not asking for a rule that that's that is that broad. We're asking for a rule of parity that allows that once the defendant has opened the door by putting his own expert on, the government may respond in.

Antonin Scalia 1:39

Well but just uh I have declared Justice Galia, I mean that makes your case easier. But it seems to me that if the defendant puts his uh mental capacity in issue. And then testifies himself but with no expert. The State can still call its own expert. So far as the prosect so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, there might be some Kansas rules about it.

Kenneth T. Schmidt 1:59

Your Honor, that may well be true, and the language of this court's precedent through Smith and Buchanan, for example, suggests that the rule may be broader than the minimum that we are asking. But of course, the issue is not whether

Samuel A. Alito Jr. 2:09

the State can call its own expert. The issue is whether uh the state can uh uh compel him to uh speak to its expert. Yes or without which the expert can't testify,

Kenneth T. Schmidt 2:21

right? Yes, Your Honor. The the Fifth Amendment, of course, is implicated when we're talking about a mental health expert who has conducted an examination of the defendant and the respondent. That's what we believe is appropriate here in terms of the parity rule. Once the defendant puts on his expert who has done so, the government may respond in con.

Antonin Scalia 2:43

I s uh it it seems to me that it's not necessary to make our decision depend on whether or not another has been called. That makes your case easier. And sometimes when we write opinions we take the easiest route. Oh But I take it under your theory. Uh even if the defendant had not called his own expert. we would still have the same uh issue before the court and you would take the position that uh a a prosecution expert can testify. Now, whether or not he can use uh the the previous statements, that's that's that's the second point.

Kenneth T. Schmidt 3:17

And Your Honor the the hypothetical Your Honor posits is closely related to the second question Kansas presented, which was not granted in this case, which would be the impeachment use once the defendant himself has testified.

Elena Kagan 3:28

But he the defendant would have to introduce the issue of his mental state. uh either by his own testimony or an expert. But there's an oddity about this case Do I understand correctly, General Smith, that it There had never been a federal proceeding. If this case had proceeded from start to finish In the Kansas Clarks. There would have been no Wilner evidence. There would have been no prosecution expert because it wouldn't have been allowed under Kansas's own rules.

Kenneth T. Schmidt 4:05

Your Honor, Kansas law makes the distinction between voluntary intoxication as a defense and mental uh disease or defect as a defense, and it does provide a mechanism under the mental disease pleadings for the obtaining of a court order mental evaluation, not under the other.