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. 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)
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v LEON
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
2. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MAPP v OHIO
TERRY v OHIO
3. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v HAVENS
4. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
U.S. v ROSS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
SINGER v U.S
BRADY v U.S
5. 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.
SINGER v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
BRADY v U.S
6. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
7. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
8. 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
ILLINOIS v GATES
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MARYLAND v BUIE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
9. 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
U.S. v ROSS
SHERMAN v U.S....
CARROLL v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
10. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MAPP v OHIO
11. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
12. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v HENSLEY
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
13. 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...
STACK v BOYLE
GREGG v GEORGIA...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
14. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
DELAWARE v PROUSE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
15. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
BRADY v U.S
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
16. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v GATES
17. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
18. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v GATES
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
19. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
TERRY v OHIO
20. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
ILLINOIS v GATES
IN RE WINSHIP...
WEEKS v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
21. 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
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v HAVENS
22. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
NEW JERSEY v TLO
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
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
U.S. v SALERNO
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
CARROLL v U.S
24. 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
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
IN RE WINSHIP...
U.S. v HAVENS
25. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
26. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
U.S. v HAVENS
ELKINS v U.S
CARROLL v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
27. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
COLORADO v BERTINE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
28. 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 JAMES DANIEL GOOD
SHERMAN v U.S....
STACK v BOYLE
IN RE GAULT...
29. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v DUNN
30. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CARROLL v U.S
31. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
BRADY v U.S
32. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
BRADY v U.S
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
33. 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
U.S. v DUNN
MARYLAND v BUIE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
34. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
HARRIS v U.S.
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
IN RE GAULT...
TERRY v OHIO
35. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
DELAWARE v PROUSE
36. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v LEON
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
37. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ILLINOIS v GATES
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v LEON
BRADY v U.S
ELKINS v U.S
39. 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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
NIX v WILLIAMS
SHERMAN v U.S....
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
40. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v ROYER
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
IN RE WINSHIP...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
42. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
43. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
HARRIS v U.S.
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
44. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
FLORIDA v ROYER
ELKINS v U.S
CARROLL v U.S
BRADY v U.S
45. 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
SHERMAN v U.S....
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v ROSS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
46. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
U.S. v HAVENS
HARRIS v U.S.
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
48. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
BRADY v U.S
NIX v WILLIAMS
WEEKS v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
49. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ILLINOIS v GATES
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
50. 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)
STACK v BOYLE
SHERMAN v U.S....
GREGG v GEORGIA...
IN RE WINSHIP...