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