October Term 2013 · Docket 12-609

Can the State compel a defendant to speak to its expert?

Kansas seeks to use Cheever's compelled statements. Cheever argues this violates his Fifth Amendment rights.

Official caption
Kansas v. Cheever
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Katyal argues the state used Cheever's words to execute him.

    Saharsky argues the state may rebut mental state claims with its own expert.

    Schmidt argues the Simmons precedent does not apply to these facts.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Kansas wants to execute Cheever using his words. Cheever wants to suppress those words. The dispute centers on the scope of a Fifth Amendment waiver.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 16, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Kansas wants to execute Cheever using his compelled statements.

Cheever wants to suppress his compelled statements.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Kansas argues the state may rebut mental state claims with its own expert.

Cheever argues the prosecution exceeded the scope of his Fifth Amendment waiver.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asks if the issue is unconstitutional compulsion.

Justice Scalia asks if the state can compel speech to its expert.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of state power to compel defendant testimony. It protects the right against self-incrimination during criminal proceedings.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON