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. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ELKINS v U.S
2. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v HENSLEY
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
3. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v HENSLEY
FLORIDA v ROYER
4. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ELKINS v U.S
CARROLL v U.S
5. 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
STACK v BOYLE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v HENSLEY
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
6. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v HAVENS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v DUNN
7. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v DUNN
IN RE WINSHIP...
8. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
WILSON v SEITER...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
HERRERA v COLLINS...
STACK v BOYLE
9. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v DUNN
10. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
TERRY v OHIO
11. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ILLINOIS v GATES
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v DUNN
12. 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...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
13. 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
U.S. v DUNN
IN RE GAULT...
BRADY v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
14. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v SALERNO
COLORADO v BERTINE
15. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v HENSLEY
16. 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
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v HENSLEY
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
17. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
IN RE WINSHIP...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
18. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
U.S. v HAVENS
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
SHERMAN v U.S....
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
19. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
20. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
IN RE GAULT...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
21. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v SOKOLOW
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
22. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
STACK v BOYLE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ELKINS v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
23. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
FLORIDA v ROYER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
24. 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
U.S. v HAVENS
ELKINS v U.S
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
STACK v BOYLE
25. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
26. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
HERRERA v COLLINS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
27. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
BRADY v U.S
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
TERRY v OHIO
28. 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
TERRY v OHIO
HARRIS v U.S.
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
BRADY v U.S
29. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
D.C. v HELLER
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v ARKANSAS
30. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
U.S. v SALERNO
WEEKS v U.S
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
31. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v LEON
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v HENSLEY
32. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
U.S. v LEON
33. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v ROSS
NIX v WILLIAMS
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
34. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
WILSON v SEITER...
ILLINOIS v GATES
35. 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
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v ROSS
D.C. v HELLER
36. 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...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
TERRY v OHIO
37. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
IN RE GAULT...
IN RE WINSHIP...
38. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
39. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
SINGER v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
40. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
COLORADO v BERTINE
D.C. v HELLER
ELKINS v U.S
41. 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
U.S. v HENSLEY
DELAWARE v PROUSE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v LEON
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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
IN RE GAULT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
NEW JERSEY v TLO
43. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
44. 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 LEON
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
45. 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)
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
46. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v HENSLEY
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
47. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v HAVENS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
48. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
CARROLL v U.S
49. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v SOKOLOW
STACK v BOYLE
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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD