Jury told Cheever was never tested for meth
Ron Sylvester
Originally published 01:21 p.m., October 25, 2007
Updated 01:21 p.m., October 25, 2007
Eureka — Evidence that Scott Cheever killed Sheriff Matt Samuels in a methamphetamine-induced haze will not come from toxicology reports.
As the jury learned Wednesday, there’s no medical evidence available to support or refute the claims.
Neither hospital personnel nor law enforcement authorized a drug screening for Cheever after his arrest on Jan. 19, 2005.
Those who treated Cheever at the crime scene and at the hospital in Eureka, meanwhile, said he showed no outward signs of intoxication.
Cheever is scheduled to take the stand Friday at the Greenwood County Courthouse.
His attorneys don’t dispute that he killed Samuels, but they say he was so loaded on meth that the killing couldn’t have been premeditated.
The difference could mean life in prison or the death penalty.
The state rested its case for capital murder against the 26-year-old Wednesday afternoon, and Judge Mike Ward gave jurors today off.
Nancy McKenzie, a physician assistant on duty at the Greenwood County Hospital emergency room the evening of Cheever’s arrest, testified that he had high blood pressure and she’d been told he took meth earlier in the day.
But she said that, medically, she saw no distress.
“I didn’t need any lab work for any medical reasons, or for my treatment,” she testified.
McKenzie said the hospital would have performed a drug screening for law enforcement, but it was not requested. Officers would have needed a search warrant to order a drug screening.
The lack of such a screening means there’s no empirical evidence on which jurors can rely to tell just how intoxicated Cheever was when he pulled the trigger on Samuels.
Cheever’s public defenders are arguing that he was so high on the dangerous stimulant he couldn’t form the premeditation needed to be convicted of capital murder.
Both McKenzie and the emergency medical worker who helped take Cheever to the hospital said he didn’t act like the people they’d treated in the throes of a meth high.
“The ones I’d seen before display anger and outrage,” Nancy Knight, of the county emergency medical services, told the jury. “He did not display any of that.”
Knight and partner Andrea Hinrichs drove their ambulance to the Hilltop area to check out Cheever after state troopers arrested him following an hours-long standoff.
Because authorities found a meth lab in the house, Hinrichs and Knight had to wash Cheever off to try to remove any toxic chemicals from the meth lab. They also took him to the hospital.
Cheever appeared calm, Knight testified. He even recognized Hinrichs as his former school bus driver and the mother of two boys with whom he had attended schools, she said.
“Did he always seem to understand your questions?” prosecutor Lanny Welch asked.
“Yes, he did,” Knight said.
Cheever also had fought tear gas and been in a gun battle with the Kansas Highway Patrol Special Response Team before he finally surrendered.
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
a gun battle, tear gassed and just shot a sherrif and he didnt act distressed afterwards?
October 25, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Maybe that's what "stoned" does.
October 25, 2007 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slipandslide (anonymous) says...
i dont know i never tried it.i wonder if being calm after killing someone is a sign of how dangerous he is you know cold emotionless killer?
October 25, 2007 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yellow82 (anonymous) says...
Whether or not he was high, how could someone defend this animal!! There is no doubt that he did take a life, whether or not he was on drugs, he still deserves to be punished. He took an innocent life, and NO one has the right to do so. I for one could never be anyone's attorney that clearly committed a vicious crime and be able to sleep at night, how can they live with themselves?
October 26, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, it would be difficult to be a defense attorney in a case like this; however, our constitution says we all have a right to fair trial.
Slipandslide, you're right. This may very well point to a cold, emotionless killer. There are such people who are amoral -- no emotions negative or positive. I forget right now what they are called, but there is a term.
October 26, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lisa (anonymous) says...
They are called psychopaths or sociopaths.
October 26, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, lisa, that's the term. Thank you.
October 26, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yellow82 (anonymous) says...
Yes, he does have the right to a trail and so does everyone else. My point was that drugs or not there is no doubt that he was the one pulling th trigger.
October 26, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abc123 (anonymous) says...
I think what they are saying is because there was no sign of him being high, then he absolutely knew what he was doing. So drugs can't be his defense or excuse.....right?? Either way his pathetic life is over.
October 26, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Absolutely, he did pull the trigger, drugs or no drugs. It's a flimsy defense to begin with. And yes, his life is over. Think other druggies will learn from this? I doubt it.
October 26, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
Since when is being high a defense for murder? Gee - just think how much time could have been saved if OJ had just used that defense! Haha I agree with the other posts - it doesn't matter if he was high, drunk, or just woke up - HE made the CHOICE to pull a trigger and kill someone - HE should suffer the consequences. This "mental state" BS is just that - BS. His defense of being high is really almost laughable except that a life was lost in this horrible tragedy. Perhaps his lawyer was high when he came up with that? Don't jump down my throat - that wasn't a personal attack - just a sarcastic comment.
Actually I went back and read the whole article and I guess the whole "being high" defense is just to establish that it was not premeditated (because apparently high people aren't capable of planning?) - that way this guy can live off us tax-payers dollars for the rest of his life rather than die in a much more civilized manner than that of his victim. I guess I'd like to know what exactly constitutes premeditation? Is it knowing the cops are on their way and so you hang out so you can shoot them? I thought I read an earlier article that said evidence was introduced that he had been warned the cops were on their way. Or is it knowing the 2 seconds before you pull the trigger that you are putting the life on the other end of your gun in danger? If the latter is true than any shooting is premeditated. Personally I don't see why premeditation even matters - if someone guns down someone in cold blood - should it really matter if they planned it for month, days, hours or if they just got mad and did it? Either way - a choice was made to take a life. They should all get the same punishment imo.
October 26, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spectator (anonymous) says...
"High" or not, he killed an ARMED individual he knew to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. "High" or not, what do you suppose could have occurred in a mall or a public park had he perceived that people were out to get him?" Paranoia is part of the adiction but he's been doing drugs for how long? And he sought intervention how often? I don't buy the "He was high and didn't know what he was doing" thing. He made the choice a long time ago.
October 26, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )