|
"To Protect and Serve...and Lie? Why Even “Good” Police Lies are Bad for Kansas Justice"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas Association for Justice
News
July 2012
By Dan Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
"The Loneliness of the Kansas Constitution, Part II"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas Association for Justice
News
May 2011
By Dan Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
"How to Free a 'Guilty' Client by Arguing Entrapment by Estoppel"
Published in the Champion, NACDL
News
December 2010
by Dan Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
"The Loneliness of the Kansas
Constitution"
Reprinted from the Journal of
the Kansas Association for Justice, Vol. 34. No. 1, September 2010
by Dan Monnat and Paige Nichols
"The Trial of Dr. George Tiller"
as told by Maren Chaloupka in the Fall 2009 Journal of the Gerry
Spence Trial Lawyers College.
What to Do When the
Jury is Out�But the Legal
Questions Keep Rolling In
Journal for the
Kansas Association of Justice Vol. 33, No. 2, November 2009
by Dan E. Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
 |

The
National Law Journal
June
16, 2008
|
Courts Putting
Hot-Button Words on Ice
Call it the age of the Loaded Word.
A
steadily increasing number of courts across the United States are
prohibiting witnesses and victims from uttering certain words in front of a
jury, banning everything from the words "rape" to "victim" to "crime scene."
"I've had wise judges frequently
order that prosecutors and witnesses not refer to certain individuals as
'victims' or locations as 'crime scenes.' Such orders are required by the
presumption of innocence," said criminal defense lawyer
Daniel E. Monnat
of Monnat & Spurrier in Wichita, Kan. Monnat convinced a judge
to exclude the terms "victim" and "crime scene" in a pending homicide case.
Kansas v. Floyd, No. 06CR17 (Stanton Co., Kan., Dist. Ct.).
Monnat
said
that words like "victim" and "crime scene" contradict the presumption of
innocence by assuming a conclusion that a jury is supposed to arrive at on
its own.
"It only makes sense. You don't want the witnesses and officers of
law enforcement talking as if it was a foregone conclusion, almost drumming
it into the jurors' minds that a crime was committed by virtue of the fact
that there is a victim," Monnat said. "I think that courts are more and more
open to restricting terminology like this because of the number of wrongful
convictions that have been demonstrated to have occurred in the U.S."
|
"Legal
Prescriptions for Diagnosing Bias During Voir Dire in Kansas Criminal Cases"
Published in the Journal for the Kansas Association of
Justice Vol. 30, No. 6, July 2008
by Dan Monnat and Paige
Nichols
"Sidelining the
Prosecutor in a Criminal Case"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association
July 2006
by Dan Monnat and Paige Nichols
"Unsealing
Seach Warrant Materials for Uncharged Clients"
Published in the Champion, NACDL
News
July 2006
by Daniel E Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
"Unraveling
the Woolsack: How to Recuse or Reverse a Biased Kansas Judge"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association
July 2006
by Dan Monnat and Paige Nichols
"The Kid Gloves Are Off : Child Hearsay After Crawford v. Washington"
Published in the Champion, NACDL News January/February 2006
by Daniel E Monnat and Paige A. Nichols
"Hearsay Today, Gone Tomorrow: Child
Hearsay after Crawford v Washington"
Published in the Journal of the
Kansas Trial Lawyers Association March 2005
by Daniel E. Monnat and
Paige A. Nichols
Synopsis:
In
Crawford v. Washington, the
United States Supreme Court appears to have rendered unconstitutional the
Kansas child-hearsay exception contained in K.S.A. 60-460(dd).click here for entire text of article
"A Primer on the Federal Wiretap Act and
Its Fourth Amendment Framework"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas
Trial Lawyers Association, March 2004
by Dan Monnat and Anne Ethen
Synopsis:
Recent law
enforcement activity in this federal jurisdiction suggests that criminal
defense attorneys may be encountering the fruits of federal wiretaps with
greater frequency. At first glance, the federal statutes governing wiretaps
may seem a disjointed and confusing set of special rules. However, for
purposes of recognizing issues to litigate, it may be helpful to view
wiretaps through the familiar framework of the Fourth Amendment. If the
wiretap procedure is viewed as one which culminates in just another search
warrant, many of the issues will be familiar from other search and seizure
contexts.click here for entire text of article
|