USA v. Jones et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 24-20070-DDC
NEWTON JONES (01),
WILLIAM CREEDEN (02),
KATERYNA JONES (03),
LAWRENCE MCMANAMON (05),
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the court is defendants Lawrence McManamon, William Creeden, and Newton
Jones’s Motion to Accommodate Hearing Impaired Defendants (Doc. 347). They request that
the court provide real-time court reporting and a monitor at each party’s table, and to do so “at
the Government’s expense[.]” Id. at 1, 3. It’s not altogether clear whether the phrase “the
Government”—as used in defendants’ motion—means the prosecutors or the court. If it’s the
former, they cite no legal authority permitting the court to shift this expense to the executive
branch’s prosecutors. Indeed, defendants’ motion never cites any legal authority at all.
Defendants McManamon and Creeden report that they experienced difficulty hearing the
proceedings on April 23, 2026, whenever the person speaking moved away from the microphone
or neglected to speak loudly enough. Id. Defendant N. Jones’s counsel anticipates the same
issue will arise with Mr. Jones. Id. at 3 n.1. Defendants assert that real-time court reporting
would address the issue. Id. at 3.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 355 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Federal courts are not subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Watson v. Veterans
Evaluation Servs., No. 23-1109-HLT-GEB, 2023 WL 6143361, at *1 n.5 (D. Kan. Sept. 20,
2023). So, they owe no legal duty to provide accommodations under that law. “‘However, in
keeping with the Judicial Conference Policy, the U.S. District Court provides reasonable
accommodations to persons with communications disabilities at the court’s expense.’” Id.
(quotation cleaned up) (quoting Williams v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 20-1214-TLN, 2021 WL
1985024, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2021)). “‘Each federal court is required to provide, at
judiciary expense, sign language interpreters or other appropriate auxiliary aid or services to
participants in federal court proceedings who are deaf, hearing-impaired, or have other
communications disabilities.’” Id. at *1 (quoting Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures,
Vol. 1, Ch. 3 (Guidelines for Providing Services to the Hearing-Impaired and other Persons with
Communications Disabilities)). “‘The court shall give primary consideration to a participant’s
choice of auxiliary aid or service.’” Id. (quoting Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures,
Vol. 1, Ch. 3).
Defendants here have chosen the auxiliary aid or service of access to real-time court
reporting during the court proceedings. The court grants their request. The court will arrange for
each hearing-impaired defendant to have access to real-time court reporting and a monitor at any
future proceeding. The court emphasizes that this Order does not provide transcript access.
Parties may elect to purchase transcripts, as in the normal course. But that cost is one the parties
themselves must bear.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants Lawrence
McManamon, William Creeden, and Newton Jones’s Motion to Accommodate Hearing Impaired
Defendants (Doc. 347) is granted.
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 355 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-20070-DDC Document 355 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3