Latest 2 Cases: State ex rel. Dickey v. Besler (Civil Procedure), State v. Thompson (Constitutional Law)

The Physician’s Conundrum: Assigning Moral Responsibility for Medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

CHARLES E. BINKLEY

Charles E. Binkley, director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, describes some critical ethical issues raised by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems for clinical decision support in medicine. Dr. Binkley calls for resolution of these issues before these emerging technologies are widely implemented.

Read More

State ex rel. Dickey v. Besler

Docket: 19-1598

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: Edward M. Mansfield

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying a citizen's quo warranto action asserting that a district judge was holding his office unlawfully, holding that this case presented a nonjusticiable controversy. In 2018, two finalists were sent to the Governor for a district judge position. Iowa law provides that, if the Governor fails to make an appointment within thirty days after a list of nominees has been submitted, the appointment shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. On a Thursday, the thirtieth day, the Governor communicated to her chief of staff the her selected nominee's identity - Jason Besler. The following Monday the Governor told Besler that he had been selected. The Chief Justice accepted the Governor's view that the appointment was timely. Gary Dickey, a private citizen, filed an application for leave to file a petition for writ of quo warranto alleging that Besler was holding the office of district judge unlawfully because the Governor failed to appoint Besler by the deadline for making an appointment. The district court denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because both the Governor and the Chief Justice deferred to and accepted the view that the appointment was timely, this quo warranto action was nonjusticiable.

State v. Thompson

Docket: 19-1259

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: McDonald

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for attempting to obtain a prescription drug by deceit, as a habitual offender, and conspiracy to commit a nonforcible felony, holding that Defendant's constitutional challenge to Iowa Code 814.6A was unavailing. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting, over Defendant's objections, evidence regarding Defendant's residential address, which was offered to prove Defendant's knowledge, motive, and intent; and (2) section 814.6A, a newly-enacted law that prohibits a represented defendant from filing pro se documents, does not violate the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. The Court then denied Defendant's motion to accept his pro se supplemental brief.