A homeless man will stand trial in April for allegedly attempting to kill an Emporia woman he had been dating.

Matthew Schroeder, 41, pleaded not guilty Friday in Lyon County District Court to counts of attempted murder, attempted kidnapping and attempted battery.

But Schroeder's attorney claims the alleged victim reported Schroeder to authorities in the past for domestic violence, then withdrew the complaints.

An Assistant Lyon County Attorney filed a motion Thursday to bar defense attorney Rand Simmons from mentioning what he calls “prior misconduct” at an upcoming trial.

“The alleged recantations... are not relevant to prove the issues before the court in the present manner,” Carissa Brinker contended in her motion. “The evidence is not relevant or admissible.”

Chief Judge Jeffry Larson scheduled a motions hearing on that issue and others for Thursday, March 30. Schroeder is scheduled to go on trial Monday, April 17.

Schroeder is charged with entering the woman's State Street home on Tuesday, October 12, 2022 and attempting to suffocate her.

Schroeder remained in the Lyon County Detention Center Monday.

(7) comments


This is definitely a case of two toxic people that shouldn’t of been together. They both have been horrible to each other and have both been guilty for a lot of bad things in their “relationship “! Homeless man isn’t a fact in this story. They were staying together and nothing good was coming from that household at all!!!!!!! Both should be locked up in my opinion.


So this woman has filed false allegations and then recanted multiple times in the past? Any lawyer worth their salt is rightfully going to bring that up... Did the state ever file charges for filing false reports? Or did they do nothing? How long until this victim recants her story this time?

The recantations may not be relevant to prove the county attorneys case, but they are absolutely relevant to prove the defendants innocence. If I'm falsely accused of rape by the same woman 99 times, and on the 100th time it finally goes to court, my attorney isn't allowed to point out "this woman has falsely accusd my client of rape 99 times in the past already??".... The assistant attorney thinks we should ignore the 99 times in the past? Just seems kinda unfair to the defense.


Recanting is very common in domestic violence situations. This is for various reasons. They can be economic, if the victim relies on his/her abuser for shelter or financial support. It can be the result of a change of heart or manipulation. Domestic violence is a cycle. Usually escalates until either the victim leaves, is gravely injured, or killed.

The article mentions she was "suffocated". Taking away someone's ability to breathe, whether through strangulation or stopping their airflow by covering their nose/mouth, steps up the lethality of the situation. They are 750% more likely to be killed by the same perpetrator.


I wonder how many times the prosecutor has allowed charges to be dropped against this guy due to "recanting"? Maybe I watch too much TV, but I thought once the victim tells an officer what happened to them, its up to the police to press charges from there, and the victim would have no authority to drop charges against their abuser.

Recanting by definition says "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong or not true and that you no longer agree with them."

If you put someone in jail, then admit that your statement was not true, that should be some sort of punishable offense.

And don't get me wrong, if this guy entered her house and suffocated her, he deserves what he has coming, but he should also be able to defend himself by telling his side of the story in its entirety, as should the victim.


The victim cannot speak for herself so the law must do it for her. As has been pointed out in another post to your original comment, recanting is common in domestic abuse issues. Fear is the usual cause, fear of the assailant, fear of loss of support, fear of being embarrassed to admit being abused among others. Put yourself in the shoes of the woman here.


That is my question, create. Why wasn't the law speaking for this victim? Why did the prosecutor drop the previous charges multiple times before it became this serious? And now the prosecutor wants to hide all the previous charges they dropped from being disclosed in court... The only time a prosecutor should drop charges is if they have a good reason to do so... a victim recanting out of fear, embarrassment, whatever is not a good reason, so there must be another reason... I'm not victim bashing here, I'm putting myself in the shoes of the prosecutor. This guy should have been convicted the first time, or second time, etc.


What is this? A defendant has a right to mount a defense? To challenge the State's case against them?

What a novel idea, Aim. We should try it in this State one day. Of course, with the Federal Supreme Court currently seated, I have little hope this approach would be upheld.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.