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. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
2. 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
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
MAPP v OHIO
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
3. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
4. 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)
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
BRADY v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
5. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
HERRERA v COLLINS...
D.C. v HELLER
COLORADO v BERTINE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
6. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v LEON
7. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
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
HARRIS v U.S.
ILLINOIS v GATES
D.C. v HELLER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
9. 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 SALERNO
U.S. v HENSLEY
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
10. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
STACK v BOYLE
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v HENSLEY
SINGER v U.S
11. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
SINGER v U.S
FLORIDA v ROYER
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
12. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v DUNN
STACK v BOYLE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
13. (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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
14. 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 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v ROSS
15. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
16. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
17. 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
STACK v BOYLE
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
SINGER v U.S
18. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
U.S. v DUNN
ILLINOIS v GATES
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
19. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
20. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
IN RE GAULT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
21. 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)
HARRIS v U.S.
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
22. 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 ROSS
TERRY v OHIO
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MAPP v OHIO
23. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
IN RE GAULT...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
STACK v BOYLE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
25. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
BRADY v U.S
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v SALERNO
IN RE WINSHIP...
26. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
27. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
WEEKS v U.S
WILSON v ARKANSAS
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
28. 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
CARROLL v U.S
STACK v BOYLE
ILLINOIS v GATES
WILSON v SEITER...
29. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
HARRIS v U.S.
TERRY v OHIO
MAPP v OHIO
30. 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 HENSLEY
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v HAVENS
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
31. 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
BRADY v U.S
IN RE WINSHIP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
32. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MARYLAND v BUIE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
CARROLL v U.S
33. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
SINGER v U.S
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
34. 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...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
IN RE WINSHIP...
35. 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
IN RE GAULT...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
TERRY v OHIO
36. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
MARYLAND v BUIE
37. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
SINGER v U.S
ELKINS v U.S
38. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WILSON v ARKANSAS
BRADY v U.S
COLORADO v BERTINE
IN RE GAULT...
39. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
40. 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....
STACK v BOYLE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v SALERNO
41. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
WILSON v SEITER...
HARRIS v U.S.
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v HENSLEY
42. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MAPP v OHIO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
SHERMAN v U.S....
43. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
44. 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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
HARRIS v U.S.
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
IN RE WINSHIP...
45. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
STACK v BOYLE
NIX v WILLIAMS
BRADY v U.S
46. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v LEON
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
47. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
IN RE GAULT...
STACK v BOYLE
48. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
CARROLL v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
49. 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 HENSLEY
U.S. v LEON
NIX v WILLIAMS
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
50. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
WILSON v ARKANSAS
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
Sorry!:) No result found.
Can you answer 50 questions in 15 minutes?
Let me suggest you:
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests
Major Subjects
Tests & Exams
AP
CLEP
DSST
GRE
SAT
GMAT
Certifications
CISSP go to https://www.isc2.org/
PMP
ITIL
RHCE
MCTS
More...
IT Skills
Android Programming
Data Modeling
Objective C Programming
Basic Python Programming
Adobe Illustrator
More...
Business Skills
Advertising Techniques
Business Accounting Basics
Business Strategy
Human Resource Management
Marketing Basics
More...
Soft Skills
Body Language
People Skills
Public Speaking
Persuasion
Job Hunting And Resumes
More...
Vocabulary
GRE Vocab
SAT Vocab
TOEFL Essential Vocab
Basic English Words For All
Global Words You Should Know
Business English
More...
Languages
AP German Vocab
AP Latin Vocab
SAT Subject Test: French
Italian Survival
Norwegian Survival
More...
Engineering
Audio Engineering
Computer Science Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Structural Engineering
More...
Health Sciences
Basic Nursing Skills
Health Science Language Fundamentals
Veterinary Technology Medical Language
Cardiology
Clinical Surgery
More...
English
Grammar Fundamentals
Literary And Rhetorical Vocab
Elements Of Style Vocab
Introduction To English Major
Complete Advanced Sentences
Literature
Homonyms
More...
Math
Algebra Formulas
Basic Arithmetic: Measurements
Metric Conversions
Geometric Properties
Important Math Facts
Number Sense Vocab
Business Math
More...
Other Major Subjects
Science
Economics
History
Law
Performing-arts
Cooking
Logic & Reasoning
Trivia
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests