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
IN RE GAULT...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ILLINOIS v GATES
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
NIX v WILLIAMS
FLORIDA v ROYER
COLORADO v BERTINE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
3. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
MAPP v OHIO
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
4. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
HERRERA v COLLINS...
CARROLL v U.S
5. 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
IN RE GAULT...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
6. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
U.S. v SOKOLOW
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
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.)
WILSON v SEITER...
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v DUNN
NEW JERSEY v TLO
8. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v HENSLEY
9. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
10. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MAPP v OHIO
MARYLAND v BUIE
11. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
TERRY v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
STACK v BOYLE
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
12. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
D.C. v HELLER
13. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
IN RE WINSHIP...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ILLINOIS v GATES
14. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
SHERMAN v U.S....
HARRIS v U.S.
HERRERA v COLLINS...
15. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
SINGER v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
16. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
MARYLAND v BUIE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
COLORADO v BERTINE
17. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v SALERNO
TERRY v OHIO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
18. 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)
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v SALERNO
ILLINOIS v GATES
GREGG v GEORGIA...
19. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
20. 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
WEEKS v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v HENSLEY
21. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
ILLINOIS v GATES
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
HARRIS v U.S.
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
22. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
HARRIS v U.S.
23. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
HARRIS v U.S.
D.C. v HELLER
24. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
25. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v HAVENS
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
26. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
27. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v ROSS
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
28. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
29. 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...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WILSON v SEITER...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
30. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
31. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
U.S. v HENSLEY
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
32. 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)
NIX v WILLIAMS
SHERMAN v U.S....
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WEEKS v U.S
33. 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...
IN RE GAULT...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
34. 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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
WILSON v ARKANSAS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
IN RE GAULT...
35. 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...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
36. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
IN RE WINSHIP...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
37. 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
U.S. v ROSS
IN RE WINSHIP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
38. 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
U.S. v HENSLEY
HARRIS v U.S.
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v ROSS
39. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
BRADY v U.S
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ILLINOIS v GATES
ELKINS v U.S
40. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
COLORADO v BERTINE
41. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
SHERMAN v U.S....
IN RE GAULT...
42. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
MAPP v OHIO
WEEKS v U.S
43. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v DUNN
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
44. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v SALERNO
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
45. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
ELKINS v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
46. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MAPP v OHIO
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
47. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
COLORADO v BERTINE
BRADY v U.S
STACK v BOYLE
48. 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
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v LEON
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
49. 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
D.C. v HELLER
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
50. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
BRADY v U.S
SINGER v U.S
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v HAVENS