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. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
NIX v WILLIAMS
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
TERRY v OHIO
2. 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
D.C. v HELLER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v SOKOLOW
3. 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...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v DUNN
4. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
5. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MAPP v OHIO
6. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ELKINS v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
7. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WILSON v ARKANSAS
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WEEKS v U.S
U.S. v LEON
8. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
U.S. v HAVENS
ILLINOIS v GATES
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
9. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
10. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
11. 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
TERRY v OHIO
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
12. 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)
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v SALERNO
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
13. (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
CARROLL v U.S
BRADY v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
14. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v HAVENS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
15. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
DELAWARE v PROUSE
GREGG v GEORGIA...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
16. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MAPP v OHIO
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
17. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE GAULT...
SHERMAN v U.S....
18. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v LEON
MAPP v OHIO
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 GATES
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
IN RE WINSHIP...
20. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
D.C. v HELLER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
STACK v BOYLE
21. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
HERRERA v COLLINS...
22. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
23. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
24. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
TERRY v OHIO
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
25. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
WEEKS v U.S
ELKINS v U.S
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
26. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
IN RE GAULT...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CARROLL v U.S
27. 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 ROSS
WILSON v SEITER...
TERRY v OHIO
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
28. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
SHERMAN v U.S....
WILSON v SEITER...
29. 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...
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
30. 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)
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
BRADY v U.S
D.C. v HELLER
31. 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
SHERMAN v U.S....
HARRIS v U.S.
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v SALERNO
32. 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
IN RE WINSHIP...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v SALERNO
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
33. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
34. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
U.S. v ROSS
WEEKS v U.S
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
TERRY v OHIO
35. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
U.S. v LEON
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
36. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v SALERNO
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v HENSLEY
37. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
38. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE WINSHIP...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
U.S. v LEON
WILSON v ARKANSAS
39. 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
WEEKS v U.S
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
40. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
41. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
42. 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
U.S. v SALERNO
BRADY v U.S
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
SHERMAN v U.S....
43. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
44. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
NIX v WILLIAMS
45. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v HAVENS
SHERMAN v U.S....
46. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v LEON
ROPER v SIMMONS...
47. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v HAVENS
SINGER v U.S
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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
WILSON v SEITER...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
49. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
WILSON v SEITER...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
GREGG v GEORGIA...
50. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE