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. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
HERRERA v COLLINS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MAPP v OHIO
U.S. v HAVENS
2. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v HENSLEY
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
DELAWARE v PROUSE
3. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MAPP v OHIO
4. 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)
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
GREGG v GEORGIA...
IN RE GAULT...
5. 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...
COLORADO v BERTINE
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
6. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
7. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v SALERNO
ROPER v SIMMONS...
8. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
FLORIDA v ROYER
SINGER v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
9. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v HENSLEY
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
10. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
WEEKS v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
CARROLL v U.S
ILLINOIS v GATES
11. 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 HODARI D
STACK v BOYLE
TERRY v OHIO
12. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
MAPP v OHIO
SINGER v U.S
13. 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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
FLORIDA v ROYER
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
14. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
NEW JERSEY v TLO
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
15. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
FLORIDA v ROYER
IN RE WINSHIP...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MAPP v OHIO
16. 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
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
17. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
BRADY v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
18. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v LEON
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
19. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
COLORADO v BERTINE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
NIX v WILLIAMS
20. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
U.S. v LEON
STACK v BOYLE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
BRADY v U.S
21. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v HENSLEY
WILSON v SEITER...
22. 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 HAVENS
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MAPP v OHIO
DELAWARE v PROUSE
23. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
IN RE WINSHIP...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
24. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ILLINOIS v GATES
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
25. 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 SOKOLOW
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
26. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v ROSS
27. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
U.S. v HAVENS
HERRERA v COLLINS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
28. 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...
U.S. v SALERNO
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v HENSLEY
29. 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
BRADY v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
30. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
WEEKS v U.S
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v LEON
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
31. 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
TERRY v OHIO
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
COLORADO v BERTINE
32. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v HAVENS
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
33. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
IN RE GAULT...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
34. 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 ROSS
U.S. v LEON
WILSON v ARKANSAS
BRADY v U.S
35. 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
IN RE WINSHIP...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
CARROLL v U.S
36. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v HAVENS
U.S. v DUNN
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
37. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
38. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
39. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v LEON
U.S. v SALERNO
ILLINOIS v GATES
40. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ELKINS v U.S
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
STACK v BOYLE
41. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
IN RE WINSHIP...
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v HENSLEY
SHERMAN v U.S....
42. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
SINGER v U.S
TERRY v OHIO
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
IN RE WINSHIP...
43. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
WILSON v SEITER...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
44. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v HAVENS
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
45. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
46. 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
D.C. v HELLER
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v HENSLEY
47. 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
ELKINS v U.S
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
NIX v WILLIAMS
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
48. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
MARYLAND v BUIE
SHERMAN v U.S....
TERRY v OHIO
49. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
IN RE WINSHIP...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
STACK v BOYLE
50. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD