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
 

Synopsis:
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