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. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
NEW JERSEY v TLO
COLORADO v BERTINE
MAPP v OHIO
ILLINOIS v GATES
2. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v ARKANSAS
3. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
FLORIDA v ROYER
4. 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
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v HENSLEY
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
5. 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 ROSS
U.S. v HENSLEY
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
6. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
IN RE GAULT...
D.C. v HELLER
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
7. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
MARYLAND v BUIE
WEEKS v U.S
ROPER v SIMMONS...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
8. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
HERRERA v COLLINS...
IN RE WINSHIP...
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v DUNN
9. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
NIX v WILLIAMS
CARROLL v U.S
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
10. 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 HENSLEY
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WILSON v SEITER...
11. 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...
SHERMAN v U.S....
ELKINS v U.S
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
12. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
STACK v BOYLE
WILSON v SEITER...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
13. 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
WEEKS v U.S
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v SALERNO
14. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
BRADY v U.S
15. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v DUNN
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
16. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v HENSLEY
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v HAVENS
17. 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
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v ROSS
U.S. v LEON
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
18. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MARYLAND v BUIE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
IN RE GAULT...
19. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
HERRERA v COLLINS...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
20. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
STACK v BOYLE
21. 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...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
22. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
DELAWARE v PROUSE
D.C. v HELLER
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
BRADY v U.S
23. 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 SOKOLOW
U.S. v SALERNO
IN RE GAULT...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
24. 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
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ELKINS v U.S
IN RE WINSHIP...
25. 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
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
SINGER v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
TERRY v OHIO
26. 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)
SINGER v U.S
BRADY v U.S
WEEKS v U.S
GREGG v GEORGIA...
27. 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
FLORIDA v ROYER
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
28. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
GREGG v GEORGIA...
U.S. v HENSLEY
SINGER v U.S
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
29. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
30. 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
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
31. 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
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
32. 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 SOKOLOW
U.S. v DUNN
DELAWARE v PROUSE
U.S. v LEON
33. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
WILSON v ARKANSAS
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
34. 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
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
NEW JERSEY v TLO
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
NIX v WILLIAMS
35. 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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v SALERNO
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
WEEKS v U.S
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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
37. 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
BRADY v U.S
MAPP v OHIO
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ROPER v SIMMONS...
38. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v SALERNO
IN RE WINSHIP...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
39. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
TERRY v OHIO
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
GREGG v GEORGIA...
40. 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
HARRIS v U.S.
IN RE WINSHIP...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
41. 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
MARYLAND v BUIE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
U.S. v SALERNO
42. 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
COLORADO v BERTINE
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
43. 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
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
CARROLL v U.S
IN RE GAULT...
44. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
FLORIDA v ROYER
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
GREGG v GEORGIA...
45. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
NEW JERSEY v TLO
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
46. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
U.S. v SALERNO
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
IN RE GAULT...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
47. 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
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WILSON v ARKANSAS
COLORADO v BERTINE
MAPP v OHIO
48. 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.
U.S. v SALERNO
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
49. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
TERRY v OHIO
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
50. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
D.C. v HELLER
U.S. v ROSS