Iowa Law Review最新文献_第5页

Proxy consent and a national DNA databank: an unethical and discriminatory combination. 代理同意和国家DNA数据库:不道德和歧视性的组合。

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 2001-01-01

T K Baumann

引用次数: 0

Circumcision and the American Academy of Pediatrics: should scientific misconduct result in trade association liability? 包皮环切术和美国儿科学会:科学不端行为应该导致行业协会的责任吗?

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 2000-05-01

M R Giannetti

引用次数: 0

Intellectual property rights in genes and gene fragments: a registration solution for expressed sequence tags. 基因和基因片段的知识产权:表达序列标签的注册解决方案。

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 2000-03-01

M A Holman, S R Munzer

引用次数: 0

The Statute That Time Forgot: 18 U.S.C. ? 3501 And The Overhauling Of Miranda 被时间遗忘的法令:18 U.S.C. ?3501和《米兰达》的改编

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 1999-11-02 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.188028

P. Cassell

{"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}

引用次数: 4

Reconceptualizing informed consent in an era of health care cost containment. 在医疗保健成本控制时代重新定义知情同意。

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 1999-10-01

J H Krause

引用次数: 0

Dumb and DOMA: Why the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional 哑巴和捍卫婚姻法案:为什么捍卫婚姻法案是违宪的

IF 1.3 3区社会学

Iowa Law Review Pub Date : 1997-10-01 DOI: 10.7208/9780226451039-008

A. Koppelman

引用次数: 15

Solomonic decisions in egg donation: unscrambling the conundrum of legal maternity. 捐卵中的所罗门式决定:解读合法生育的难题。