|
Home Dan Monnat Stan Spurrier Jim Pratt Laura Shaneyfelt Trevor Riddle TV News Eagle News Online News Contact Us Values and Philosophy Notable Cases Community Service Speaking Schedule Publications Employment Disclaimer Staff Location Maps
| |
| Publications |
|
 |

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."
|
Laura Shaneyfelt receives the Louise Maddox Award
Wichita Bar Association -- Bar-o-Meter: May 2008
Laura Shaneyfelt
was the 2008 Recipient of the Louise Maddox Award at a luncheon
sponsored by the Wichita Women Attorneys Association April 17, 2008.
The award ceremony was well attended by an overflow crowd which
included Laura's mother, father and children. Gaye Tibbets presented
a slide show of the "accomplishments" of Laura including a legal
argument she had made with her mother on why she should be allowed
to quit taking piano lessons. On a serious note, Gaye also presented
the many reasons why Laura was chosen for her hard work on
reproductive issues.
Congratulations, Laura!!!
"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
|
"Amendments to
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure You’ll Want to Know About "
Published in the Journal of the Kansas
Trial Lawyers Association, May 2003
by Dan Monnat and Anne EthenSynopsis:
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have recently undergone a major
revision. The rules received a “general restyling . . . to make them more easily
understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules,”
effective December 1, 2002. As a part of this restyling, many of the rules have
been broken down into new subdivisions and various provisions of the rules have
been moved and rearranged. For example, the provisions of Rule 40, governing the
procedures to be followed after the arrest of a person on charges pending in
another district, have been moved, primarily to Rules 5 and 5.1. Since many
subsection designations have also been changed, it would be a good idea to check
any standard motions you may use and update the citations.
Amid the stylistic changes, it could be easy to overlook several substantive
amendments which also took effect December 1, 2002. This article will outline
some of the amendments to the rules that affect the practice of criminal law in
federal court. In this article, the authors will refer to the pre-December 1,
2002, Rules as the “prior” or “former” rules. The authors will refer to the
post-December 1, 2002, Rules as the “amended” or “restyled” rules. click
here for the entire text of the article
|
"Ain't
Misbehavin'? Think Again
Identifying Ten Improper Prosecutorial Arguments in Criminal Cases"
Published in the Journal of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, March 2001
by Dan Monnat and Paige A. Nichols click here for entire text of article |
al court. In this article, the authors will refer
to the pre-Decemr 1, 2002, Rules as the “prior” or “former” rules. The authors
will refer to the post-December 1, 2002, Rules as the “amended” or “restyled”
rules.
|