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