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)
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ILLINOIS v GATES
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
CARROLL v U.S
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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
3. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
U.S. v HAVENS
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v LEON
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
4. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v HENSLEY
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
5. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
COLORADO v BERTINE
WILSON v SEITER...
6. 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
CARROLL v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
TERRY v OHIO
7. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
8. 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)
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
9. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v ARKANSAS
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
WEEKS v U.S
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
11. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
12. 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
U.S. v ROSS
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v HAVENS
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
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
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
COLORADO v BERTINE
14. 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 GAULT...
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v HENSLEY
SHERMAN v U.S....
15. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
NIX v WILLIAMS
DELAWARE v PROUSE
16. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
HARRIS v U.S.
U.S. v SALERNO
IN RE WINSHIP...
17. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MAPP v OHIO
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
18. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WEEKS v U.S
19. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
MARYLAND v BUIE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
20. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v HENSLEY
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
DELAWARE v PROUSE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
21. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
HARRIS v U.S.
NIX v WILLIAMS
22. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
GREGG v GEORGIA...
TERRY v OHIO
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
WEEKS v U.S
23. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
24. 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
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v HENSLEY
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
25. 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
U.S. v LEON
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
26. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v SALERNO
SINGER v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
27. 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
NIX v WILLIAMS
HARRIS v U.S.
MARYLAND v BUIE
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
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
ROPER v SIMMONS...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
IN RE GAULT...
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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
TERRY v OHIO
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
30. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v LEON
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
31. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v ROSS
32. 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
U.S. v ROSS
U.S. v DUNN
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v HAVENS
33. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
IN RE GAULT...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
SINGER v U.S
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
34. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
D.C. v HELLER
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
35. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
ROPER v SIMMONS...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
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
CARROLL v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
ILLINOIS v GATES
U.S. v SALERNO
37. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
IN RE WINSHIP...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
38. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
NIX v WILLIAMS
TERRY v OHIO
39. 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 JAMES DANIEL GOOD
STACK v BOYLE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
40. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
HERRERA v COLLINS...
41. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
DELAWARE v PROUSE
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v HENSLEY
42. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
WEEKS v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
IN RE WINSHIP...
43. 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
SHERMAN v U.S....
IN RE WINSHIP...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v HAVENS
44. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
NEW JERSEY v TLO
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
45. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
WEEKS v U.S
46. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
47. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
48. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
HARRIS v U.S.
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
COLORADO v BERTINE
49. 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
TERRY v OHIO
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
50. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
HARRIS v U.S.
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MAPP v OHIO