SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
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)
U.S. v ROSS
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ELKINS v U.S
NEW JERSEY v TLO
2. 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
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
NEW JERSEY v TLO
3. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
4. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
STACK v BOYLE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
DELAWARE v PROUSE
5. 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
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
SHERMAN v U.S....
6. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
HARRIS v U.S.
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
IN RE WINSHIP...
ELKINS v U.S
7. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
WEEKS v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
CARROLL v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
8. (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 DUNN
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
9. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v LEON
ILLINOIS v GATES
10. Police may conduct brief - scientifically random/systemic - suspicionless searches of motorists at fixed roadside checkpoints
DELAWARE v PROUSE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
COLORADO v BERTINE
GREGG v GEORGIA...
11. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
U.S. v HENSLEY
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
SHERMAN v U.S....
12. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
SHERMAN v U.S....
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
SINGER v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
13. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
U.S. v HENSLEY
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
IN RE WINSHIP...
NIX v WILLIAMS
14. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v SALERNO
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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
ELKINS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
16. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
17. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
D.C. v HELLER
SHERMAN v U.S....
18. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v HAVENS
SHERMAN v U.S....
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
19. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
IN RE WINSHIP...
IN RE GAULT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
20. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
WILSON v ARKANSAS
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
21. 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
ILLINOIS v GATES
STACK v BOYLE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
22. 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)
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
23. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
24. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
25. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
26. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
27. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
U.S. v ROSS
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
28. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ELKINS v U.S
D.C. v HELLER
29. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v DUNN
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
30. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v LEON
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
31. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
MAPP v OHIO
SINGER v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
32. 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
U.S. v DUNN
COLORADO v BERTINE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
33. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v HAVENS
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
MAPP v OHIO
34. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
U.S. v LEON
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
U.S. v DUNN
ELKINS v U.S
35. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
IN RE GAULT...
ELKINS v U.S
36. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
37. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
STACK v BOYLE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
HARRIS v U.S.
WILSON v ARKANSAS
38. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
MAPP v OHIO
IN RE WINSHIP...
39. 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
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
IN RE WINSHIP...
40. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
41. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
MAPP v OHIO
SINGER v U.S
42. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ILLINOIS v GATES
TERRY v OHIO
43. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
44. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
CARROLL v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
NIX v WILLIAMS
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
TERRY v OHIO
BRADY v U.S
DELAWARE v PROUSE
SHERMAN v U.S....
46. 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
ELKINS v U.S
HERRERA v COLLINS...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
47. 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
U.S. v HENSLEY
TERRY v OHIO
ILLINOIS v GATES
IN RE WINSHIP...
48. 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 HAVENS
U.S. v HENSLEY
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v LEON
49. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
CARROLL v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MAPP v OHIO
50. 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
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v SALERNO