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