Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about the Constitutional limits on (1) freezing a criminal defendant’s assets without a pretrial hearing; and (2) a state’s use of mental health exam results as rebuttal testimony:
(1) Kaley v. United States [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-464]
- Do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pretrial, adversarial hearing, at which the defendant may challenge the underlying charges before the government can freeze assets needed by the defendant to retain counsel of choice?
(2) Kansas v. Cheever [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-609]
- When a defendant presents expert testimony that he was not in the required mental-state to commit a capital offense because of methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant’s right against self-incrimination by presenting rebuttal testimony based on a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant?