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. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
CARROLL v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
SINGER v U.S
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
2. 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)
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
3. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v DUNN
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
4. 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
CARROLL v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v HAVENS
D.C. v HELLER
5. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
6. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
7. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
CARROLL v U.S
STACK v BOYLE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MAPP v OHIO
8. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
9. 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
U.S. v DUNN
D.C. v HELLER
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v SOKOLOW
10. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
IN RE GAULT...
SINGER v U.S
11. 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 SOKOLOW
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v HENSLEY
12. Inmates have the right to an institutional disciplinary hearing - written advance notice of the hearing - to present evidence/witnesses/testify in their own behalf at the hearing - and a formal ruling is to be placed in their file
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ILLINOIS v GATES
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
13. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
NIX v WILLIAMS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
14. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
SINGER v U.S
SHERMAN v U.S....
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
15. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v HAVENS
NEW JERSEY v TLO
16. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v ROSS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
17. 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
WILSON v ARKANSAS
STACK v BOYLE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
18. 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....
BRADY v U.S
MAPP v OHIO
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
19. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v HENSLEY
20. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
ELKINS v U.S
21. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
NEW JERSEY v TLO
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v DUNN
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
22. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
HARRIS v U.S.
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
WILSON v SEITER...
NIX v WILLIAMS
23. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MARYLAND v BUIE
ILLINOIS v GATES
24. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
WEEKS v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
25. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
NIX v WILLIAMS
MARYLAND v BUIE
26. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
FLORIDA v ROYER
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
27. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v ROSS
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
WILSON v SEITER...
28. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
U.S. v SALERNO
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
HARRIS v U.S.
DELAWARE v PROUSE
29. 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
MAPP v OHIO
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v SALERNO
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
30. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MAPP v OHIO
31. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
SINGER v U.S
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
32. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
U.S. v HENSLEY
U.S. v DUNN
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
33. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
DELAWARE v PROUSE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
34. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
HARRIS v U.S.
WILSON v ARKANSAS
35. 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
U.S. v LEON
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
36. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v DUNN
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WILSON v ARKANSAS
37. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
IN RE WINSHIP...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
38. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v SALERNO
39. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
IN RE GAULT...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
40. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
41. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
NIX v WILLIAMS
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
42. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MARYLAND v BUIE
43. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
WEEKS v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v SOKOLOW
44. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
COLORADO v BERTINE
45. 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
MAPP v OHIO
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
TERRY v OHIO
46. 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
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ILLINOIS v GATES
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
47. Plain view doctrine - if the officer is legally present - the offending objects are in plain view - and the incriminating nature is readily apparent - the items may be seized without a warrant
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
HARRIS v U.S.
MAPP v OHIO
GREGG v GEORGIA...
48. Evidence discarded by an individual fleeing from the police is admissible in court - even if the police had no advance cause to focus attention upon the person who discarded the material
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
D.C. v HELLER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
49. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
SHERMAN v U.S....
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CARROLL v U.S
50. 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
U.S. v DUNN
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...