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. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
IN RE WINSHIP...
2. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
MAPP v OHIO
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
BRADY v U.S
3. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ILLINOIS v GATES
4. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
NIX v WILLIAMS
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MAPP v OHIO
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
5. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
IN RE WINSHIP...
6. 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
BRADY v U.S
FLORIDA v ROYER
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ELKINS v U.S
7. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v HENSLEY
WEEKS v U.S
8. 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...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WEEKS v U.S
9. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
IN RE WINSHIP...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
10. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
WILSON v SEITER...
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)
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
12. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
ILLINOIS v GATES
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CARROLL v U.S
FLORIDA v ROYER
13. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
DELAWARE v PROUSE
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v SALERNO
14. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
BRADY v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
IN RE WINSHIP...
15. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
FLORIDA v ROYER
MAPP v OHIO
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
16. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
TERRY v OHIO
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
17. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v HAVENS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
18. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
BRADY v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
19. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
ELKINS v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
20. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
21. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
NIX v WILLIAMS
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
22. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
CARROLL v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v LEON
23. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
IN RE GAULT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
24. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
IN RE WINSHIP...
ELKINS v U.S
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
25. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
U.S. v SOKOLOW
SINGER v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v ROSS
26. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v ROSS
STACK v BOYLE
27. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MARYLAND v BUIE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
28. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
CARROLL v U.S
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
BRADY v U.S
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
29. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
SHERMAN v U.S....
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
30. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
ELKINS v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v SALERNO
SHERMAN v U.S....
31. 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
IN RE GAULT...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
32. 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
U.S. v HENSLEY
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
TERRY v OHIO
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
33. 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
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
TERRY v OHIO
34. 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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
35. 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 SOKOLOW
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
36. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
WEEKS v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
D.C. v HELLER
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
37. 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
WILSON v ARKANSAS
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
IN RE GAULT...
38. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v HENSLEY
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
39. 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 SEITER...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v LEON
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
40. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
41. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ILLINOIS v GATES
SINGER v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
42. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
BRADY v U.S
WEEKS v U.S
MAPP v OHIO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
43. 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
IN RE GAULT...
ILLINOIS v GATES
WILSON v SEITER...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
44. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
IN RE WINSHIP...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
45. 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
SINGER v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v LEON
46. 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...
U.S. v HAVENS
D.C. v HELLER
47. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
IN RE WINSHIP...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
48. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
STACK v BOYLE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
49. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
50. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
SINGER v U.S
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
HARRIS v U.S.