Kansas v. Cheever was essentially about the use and understanding of the Fifth Amendment. The accused, Cheever, had shot a police officer who tried to arrest him. However, in his defense, Cheever said his past and current methamphetamine use affected his mental capacity to intentionally kill an officer. This type of defense later became known in court as the voluntary intoxication defense, recognized by the State of Kansas. Additionally, Cheever used his testimony regarding his mental capacity as well as that of an expert witness, a psychiatric doctor, to present his case. The federal court, the court in which the trial was first held, ordered Cheever to submit to an examination by a court-appointed mental health expert. The State of Kansas used the examination provided by the court-appointed expert as evidence against Cheever as well as the testimony provided by the court-appointed expert. The Federal Court found Cheever guilty of capital murder, meaning he faces the death penalty. However, Cheever appealed and the federal court's decision was ultimately overturned by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the decision on the grounds that a court-appointed expert's testimony on Cheever's mental evaluation was invalid based on the voluntary intoxication defense. Therefore, the expert's testimony was unconstitutional because it violated Cheever's Fifth Amendment, the right to be free from self-incrimination. This case was brought before the United States Supreme Court to determine whether there was indeed a violation of the Fifth Amendment. General Schmidt, on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. the State of Kansas, began arguments against the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States... ... middle of document.... .. to the question of whether the State violated defendant's Fifth Amendment by using evidence from defendant's court-ordered mental evaluation to rebut defendant's defense. Justice Sotomayor was the judge responsible for writing the unanimous opinion. She said that by denying the prosecution's right to introduce psychiatric evidence in order to rebut the psychiatric evidence provided by the defendant, it undermined the process by which the jury hears both sides of any discussion particularly about a person's mental capacity. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not limit prosecutions to the presentation of similar evidence or help defendants avoid proper cross-examination. The concept of the ruling was that when a defendant provides expert testimony and his own when exposing his sanity at issue, the prosecution can also do so to rebut.