SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
Criminal Law 101: Court Cases
Start Test
Study First
Subject
:
law
Instructions:
Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
If you are not ready to take this test, you can
study here
.
Match each statement with the correct term.
Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.
This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MARYLAND v BUIE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
2. Indigents have the right to a legal counsel during the trial stage; the state will appoint an attorney to the case if the individual cannot afford one
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
3. A stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior
U.S. v ROSS
BRADY v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
TERRY v OHIO
4. Police may stop and search a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is carrying individuals or articles that offend the law - and the vehicle is now or is about to be moved
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CARROLL v U.S
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
5. If the criminal conduct is the product of government agent creativity/if the government induced the individual to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have committed - the government action would be considered entrapment and the individual wo
SHERMAN v U.S....
ILLINOIS v GATES
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v LEON
6. Officers may search the suspect and the adjoining space region incident to a lawful arrest; if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that there is hidden danger present - officers may conduct a protective sweep of the area - but it is only to be a
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MARYLAND v BUIE
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
BRADY v U.S
7. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v ROSS
FLORIDA v ROYER
8. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
9. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
IN RE GAULT...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
STACK v BOYLE
10. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WEEKS v U.S
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v DUNN
11. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
IN RE WINSHIP...
12. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
NIX v WILLIAMS
13. Dangerousness test - bail may be denied if there is clear and convincing evidence that defendant are dangerous and pose a threat to the community at large and the court participants in particular
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v SALERNO
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
14. Apparent authority doctrine - if consent to search is given by someone who does not have the authority to do so - but the police reasonably believed they did - the evidence is still admissible in court
HERRERA v COLLINS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
15. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
16. Plea bargaining is legal as long as an attorney is present to protect the defendant's rights - the plea is voluntarily made - and the defendant has a full knowledge of the consequences
ILLINOIS v GATES
WILSON v SEITER...
BRADY v U.S
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
17. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
D.C. v HELLER
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
18. The erroneous admission of a coerced confession at trial does not constitute grounds for an automatic mistrial; in some cases - an involuntary confession can be taken and legally admitted as evidence; the totality of the circumstances is to be consid
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
19. Totality of the circumstances test - taken piecemeal - the evidence may not amount to probable cause - but if taken together as a whole the evidence achieves that level - the legal standard of proof for the search has been met
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ILLINOIS v GATES
MARYLAND v BUIE
MAPP v OHIO
20. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
21. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MAPP v OHIO
22. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess a firearm for personal use; specifically - there is a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home for self defense
D.C. v HELLER
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MAPP v OHIO
23. Reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used by public school officials to conduct searches on public school grounds of individuals who may be violating either the law or school rules
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FLORIDA v ROYER
24. Allows the death penalty to be administered as long as the capital sentence is not mandatory - aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered - and a bifurcated proceeding (i.e. - different judges determine guilt and sentence)
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
25. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
26. Reasonable suspicion can be used as the basis for investigative searches and seizures in situations involving pre-eminent public interests; specifically - reasonable suspicion is the standard to be used to allow investigatory searches of individuals
COLORADO v BERTINE
SHERMAN v U.S....
NEW JERSEY v TLO
FLORIDA v ROYER
27. An investigatory search may be conducted if the totality of the circumstances establishes reasonable suspicion to believe that a person matches the drug courier profile
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
28. Suspects must be informed of their basic rights at the point of arrest - particularly the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during any interrogations; confessions must meet the tests of voluntariness and awareness
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v ROSS
FLORIDA v ROYER
29. A vehicle that has been impounded by police officials can be searched in its entirety; all items found in the vehicle - include closed and locked items - may also searched
NIX v WILLIAMS
COLORADO v BERTINE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
30. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
31. Made it more difficult for inmates to win unconstitutional conditions of confinement cases; inmates must demonstrate specific unconstitutional conditions of confinement - and specific intent on the part of specific prison officials to maintain those
U.S. v SOKOLOW
IN RE GAULT...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
WILSON v SEITER...
32. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v ROYER
HERRERA v COLLINS...
33. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
IN RE WINSHIP...
34. Defendants have the right to trial by jury if the potential sentence is more than six months of incarceration (see also Baldwin v New York)
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v HAVENS
HARRIS v U.S.
GREGG v GEORGIA...
35. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
SINGER v U.S
36. Juvenile court proceedings must possess the elements of basic fundamental fairness; juveniles have the right to a proper hearing - to have an advance notification of that hearing and its purpose - the right to be present at the hearing - the right to
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MARYLAND v BUIE
IN RE GAULT...
BRADY v U.S
37. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
38. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
39. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v HAVENS
IN RE WINSHIP...
40. Bail bond agents may use physical force to capture their bondees who have skipped bail - as long as the force used is reasonably related to the custody and/or transportation of the bondees
NEW JERSEY v TLO
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v ROSS
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
41. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
42. If probable cause of another offense arises during a routine vehicle/traffic stop - every occupant and every part of the vehicle and its contents - including closed and locked containers in the vehicle - may be searched; search justification arises o
U.S. v ROSS
U.S. v HAVENS
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE WINSHIP...
43. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v LEON
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
44. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
SINGER v U.S
45. Randomized consent searches of individuals who are on public transportation is acceptable - even though such searches carry some degree of implied coercion and are not truly voluntary; the governing test is whether a reasonable person feels free to d
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
HERRERA v COLLINS...
TERRY v OHIO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
46. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
SINGER v U.S
47. Failure to appear test - bail may be denied if there is probable cause to believe that defendants will fail to appear at future judicial proceedings
STACK v BOYLE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
WEEKS v U.S
48. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
COLORADO v BERTINE
49. Evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law; known as the good faith exemption
GREGG v GEORGIA...
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v DUNN
U.S. v LEON
50. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
FLORIDA v ROYER
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...