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. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
CARROLL v U.S
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
2. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v DUNN
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
HARRIS v U.S.
3. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
DELAWARE v PROUSE
IN RE WINSHIP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v ROSS
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
U.S. v ROSS
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v SALERNO
5. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v SALERNO
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
6. 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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
IN RE GAULT...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
7. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
8. 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 DUNN
D.C. v HELLER
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
9. 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
SINGER v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
CARROLL v U.S
10. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v HENSLEY
COLORADO v BERTINE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
11. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v DUNN
MARYLAND v BUIE
12. 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
STACK v BOYLE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
13. 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
ELKINS v U.S
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
14. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
NEW JERSEY v TLO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
WILSON v SEITER...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
15. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
SINGER v U.S
16. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
IN RE WINSHIP...
17. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MARYLAND v BUIE
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
18. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
NEW JERSEY v TLO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
19. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
SHERMAN v U.S....
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
20. 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
BRADY v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
21. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ILLINOIS v GATES
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
22. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
GREGG v GEORGIA...
D.C. v HELLER
23. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
24. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
NIX v WILLIAMS
25. 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...
WILSON v SEITER...
STACK v BOYLE
MARYLAND v BUIE
26. 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
SINGER v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MARYLAND v BUIE
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
STACK v BOYLE
FLORIDA v ROYER
IN RE GAULT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
28. 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
ELKINS v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
29. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
NEW JERSEY v TLO
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
COLORADO v BERTINE
30. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
U.S. v SOKOLOW
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
31. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
ILLINOIS v GATES
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
32. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
SINGER v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
33. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
HARRIS v U.S.
FLORIDA v ROYER
34. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
MAPP v OHIO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
35. 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
MAPP v OHIO
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WEEKS v U.S
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
36. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ELKINS v U.S
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
37. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ELKINS v U.S
38. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v HAVENS
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
39. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
TERRY v OHIO
40. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
HERRERA v COLLINS...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
COLORADO v BERTINE
41. (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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
IN RE WINSHIP...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
42. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
COLORADO v BERTINE
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
43. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v ROSS
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
44. 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....
GREGG v GEORGIA...
HARRIS v U.S.
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
45. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
U.S. v HENSLEY
CARROLL v U.S
46. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
COLORADO v BERTINE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v DUNN
SHERMAN v U.S....
47. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
FLORIDA v ROYER
NIX v WILLIAMS
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
48. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
49. 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
MAPP v OHIO
NEW JERSEY v TLO
BRADY v U.S
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
50. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
WEEKS v U.S
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v SALERNO