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