Does the introduction of a psychological evaluation ordered under a statute governing involuntary hospitalization constitute a Fifth Amendment violation?

Although the court distinguished the examination at issue from one occasioned by a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, it did so entirely on the assumption that when a defendant asserts an insanity defense he raises an issue and introduces supporting psychiatric testimony which the state has a right to rebut. ( Id., at p. 465, 101 S.Ct. at p. 1874.) On the same theory, in Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987) 483 U.S. 402, 107 S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336, where "petitioner's entire defense strategy was to establish the 'mental status' defense of extreme emotional disturbance" (id., 107 S.Ct. at p. 2918) and his sole witness was a social worker who read selectively from evaluations of his mental condition ( id., at p. 2910), the court held the introduction on cross-examination of a psychological evaluation ordered under a statute governing involuntary hospitalization ( id., at p. 2911) "for limited rebuttal purpose does not constitute a Fifth Amendment violation." ( Id., at p. 2918.)