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