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