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. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
TERRY v OHIO
DELAWARE v PROUSE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
2. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v HENSLEY
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
FLORIDA v ROYER
3. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
D.C. v HELLER
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
4. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MAPP v OHIO
STACK v BOYLE
5. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
NEW JERSEY v TLO
NIX v WILLIAMS
WILSON v ARKANSAS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
6. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v DUNN
7. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v DUNN
ROPER v SIMMONS...
8. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v ROSS
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
9. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v HENSLEY
ILLINOIS v GATES
10. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
MARYLAND v BUIE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
11. 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
WEEKS v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
HARRIS v U.S.
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
12. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
CARROLL v U.S
SHERMAN v U.S....
13. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v LEON
14. 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...
COLORADO v BERTINE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
15. 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)
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
HARRIS v U.S.
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
16. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
WILSON v SEITER...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v HENSLEY
17. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
WEEKS v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
18. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
IN RE GAULT...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
19. 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
U.S. v DUNN
STACK v BOYLE
COLORADO v BERTINE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
20. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CARROLL v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
21. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v HENSLEY
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v HAVENS
22. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ILLINOIS v GATES
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
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
FLORIDA v ROYER
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v HAVENS
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
24. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
HARRIS v U.S.
25. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v LEON
WILSON v ARKANSAS
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
26. 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
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v DUNN
NIX v WILLIAMS
SINGER v U.S
27. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WILSON v SEITER...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
28. 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...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
WILSON v SEITER...
CARROLL v U.S
29. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
IN RE GAULT...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
30. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
SINGER v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
31. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
SHERMAN v U.S....
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v HENSLEY
32. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v HENSLEY
HARRIS v U.S.
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
33. 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
CARROLL v U.S
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
U.S. v DUNN
34. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v LEON
35. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
D.C. v HELLER
WEEKS v U.S
36. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
ILLINOIS v GATES
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
37. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
38. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
39. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
WILSON v SEITER...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
40. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
WEEKS v U.S
TERRY v OHIO
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
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...
HARRIS v U.S.
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v SOKOLOW
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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
43. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MAPP v OHIO
44. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
BRADY v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
45. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v HENSLEY
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
46. 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...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
47. 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 HENSLEY
STACK v BOYLE
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
48. 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
IN RE GAULT...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
WEEKS v U.S
49. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
50. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
FLORIDA v ROYER
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...