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