{"title":"Proxy consent and a national DNA databank: an unethical and discriminatory combination.","authors":"T K Baumann","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"86 2","pages":"667-701"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25623098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Circumcision and the American Academy of Pediatrics: should scientific misconduct result in trade association liability?","authors":"M R Giannetti","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"85 4","pages":"1507-68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2000-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22279992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Intellectual property rights in genes and gene fragments: a registration solution for expressed sequence tags.","authors":"M A Holman, S R Munzer","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"85 3","pages":"735-848"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25893690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article defends the Fourth Circuit's recent opinion in United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999), which concluded that Congress had overruled Miranda by enacting 18 U.S.C. ? 3501. (It may be relevant to note that the author of this article was the attorney who argued for this result on behalf of an amicus in the Fourth Circuit). Part I explores the almost-forgotten history leading to Miranda and the congressional reaction reflected in ? 3501. Part I reports, apparently for the first time, some of the details of the investigation of Ernest Miranda's crimes, as recounted by the detective who interrogated him. It then briefly reviews the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda and the congressional response in ? 3501. Part II turns to the claims of the Clinton Justice Department and its academic supporters that the Department's recent refusal to defend ? 3501 accords with long-standing Justice Department policy. In fact, the well-settled policy of the Department was to defend the statute, a litigation posture that had even produced a favorable reported appellate decision in the Tenth Circuit. The Clinton Administration recently reversed this venerable position, apparently over the objections of career prosecutors. Part III explains why the Fourth Circuit in Dickerson correctly concluded that ? 3501 is constitutional. Two arguments strongly support this result. First, as explained in Dickerson, Congress has the power to override the mere "prophylactic" Miranda rules pursuant to its undoubted power to establish rules of evidence for federal courts. Second, an independent argument leads to the same conclusion. Section 3501, considered not by itself (as its critics are wont to do) but as part of a full package of measures covering questioning by federal police officers (such as tort actions, Bivens actions, criminal prosecutions, and internal administrative sanctions against federal agents who coerce confessions), is a reasonable alternative to the Miranda rules. A final objection raised by the Department and the critics of the statute is that ? 3501 need not be defended because federal prosecutors can prevail even laboring under the Miranda exclusionary rule. This argument wrongly diverts focus away from the cases at which ? 3501 was targeted: those in which, as in Dickerson, dangerous criminals would be set free were Miranda applied.
本文为第四巡回法院最近在《美国诉迪克森案》(United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (Fourth Cir 1999))一案中的意见进行了辩护，该意见得出结论认为，国会通过颁布《美国法典》第18卷第6条，推翻了米兰达的裁决。3501. (值得注意的是，这篇文章的作者是在第四巡回法院代表法庭之友为这一结果辩护的律师)。第一部分探讨了几乎被遗忘的历史，导致米兰达和国会的反应反映在?3501. 第一部分，显然是第一次，报告了欧内斯特·米兰达犯罪调查的一些细节，由审讯他的侦探叙述。然后简要回顾了最高法院对米兰达案的裁决和国会对?3501. 第二部分转向克林顿司法部及其学术支持者的说法，即司法部最近拒绝为?3501符合司法部长期以来的政策。事实上，司法部一贯的政策是捍卫法令，这种诉讼姿态甚至在第十巡回法院产生了一个有利的上诉判决。克林顿政府最近显然不顾职业检察官的反对，改变了这一可敬的立场。第三部分解释了为什么第四巡回法院在迪克森案中正确地得出了?3501是符合宪法的。两个论点有力地支持了这一结果。首先，正如迪克森案所解释的那样，国会有权根据其为联邦法院制定证据规则的毋庸置疑的权力，推翻仅仅是“预防性的”米兰达规则。第二，一个独立的论点导致相同的结论。3501条款不是单独考虑(就像它的批评者经常做的那样)，而是作为涵盖联邦警察讯问的一整套措施的一部分(如侵权诉讼、比文斯诉讼、刑事起诉和对强迫供词的联邦特工的内部行政制裁)，是米兰达规则的合理替代方案。司法部和该法规的批评者提出的最后一个反对意见是?3501不需要辩护，因为即使在米兰达排除规则下，联邦检察官也可以获胜。这一论点错误地转移了对以下案例的关注?3501的目标是:像迪克森案一样，如果适用米兰达法案，危险的罪犯就会被释放。
{"title":"The Statute That Time Forgot: 18 U.S.C. ? 3501 And The Overhauling Of Miranda","authors":"P. Cassell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.188028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.188028","url":null,"abstract":"This article defends the Fourth Circuit's recent opinion in United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999), which concluded that Congress had overruled Miranda by enacting 18 U.S.C. ? 3501. (It may be relevant to note that the author of this article was the attorney who argued for this result on behalf of an amicus in the Fourth Circuit). Part I explores the almost-forgotten history leading to Miranda and the congressional reaction reflected in ? 3501. Part I reports, apparently for the first time, some of the details of the investigation of Ernest Miranda's crimes, as recounted by the detective who interrogated him. It then briefly reviews the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda and the congressional response in ? 3501. Part II turns to the claims of the Clinton Justice Department and its academic supporters that the Department's recent refusal to defend ? 3501 accords with long-standing Justice Department policy. In fact, the well-settled policy of the Department was to defend the statute, a litigation posture that had even produced a favorable reported appellate decision in the Tenth Circuit. The Clinton Administration recently reversed this venerable position, apparently over the objections of career prosecutors. Part III explains why the Fourth Circuit in Dickerson correctly concluded that ? 3501 is constitutional. Two arguments strongly support this result. First, as explained in Dickerson, Congress has the power to override the mere \"prophylactic\" Miranda rules pursuant to its undoubted power to establish rules of evidence for federal courts. Second, an independent argument leads to the same conclusion. Section 3501, considered not by itself (as its critics are wont to do) but as part of a full package of measures covering questioning by federal police officers (such as tort actions, Bivens actions, criminal prosecutions, and internal administrative sanctions against federal agents who coerce confessions), is a reasonable alternative to the Miranda rules. A final objection raised by the Department and the critics of the statute is that ? 3501 need not be defended because federal prosecutors can prevail even laboring under the Miranda exclusionary rule. This argument wrongly diverts focus away from the cases at which ? 3501 was targeted: those in which, as in Dickerson, dangerous criminals would be set free were Miranda applied.","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"175-259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1999-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67770279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reconceptualizing informed consent in an era of health care cost containment.","authors":"J H Krause","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"261-386"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22402994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1997-10-01DOI: 10.7208/9780226451039-008
A. Koppelman
{"title":"Dumb and DOMA: Why the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.7208/9780226451039-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226451039-008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"83 1","pages":"1-33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1997-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71328048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Solomonic decisions in egg donation: unscrambling the conundrum of legal maternity.","authors":"A R Schiff","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"80 2","pages":"265-96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22127074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Revising Iowa's Life-sustaining Procedures Act: creating a practical guide to living wills in Iowa.","authors":"C P Goldman","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"76 5","pages":"1137-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1991-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24985952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Constitutionality of the Initiative and Referendum","authors":"Louis J. Sirico","doi":"10.2307/781153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/781153","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51610,"journal":{"name":"Iowa Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"1980-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/781153","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68580816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：