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. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
NIX v WILLIAMS
2. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
COLORADO v BERTINE
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
3. 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
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
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)
GREGG v GEORGIA...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
5. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v DUNN
6. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
U.S. v HENSLEY
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
7. 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
TERRY v OHIO
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
8. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
U.S. v SOKOLOW
SHERMAN v U.S....
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
9. 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)
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
10. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
SHERMAN v U.S....
IN RE WINSHIP...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
11. Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause
WILSON v ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
COLORADO v BERTINE
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
12. 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
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
13. 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
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
MAPP v OHIO
ILLINOIS v GATES
14. 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
TERRY v OHIO
WILSON v SEITER...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
D.C. v HELLER
15. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
BRADY v U.S
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
SINGER v U.S
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
16. 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 LEON
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
IN RE WINSHIP...
HARRIS v U.S.
17. Inevitable discovery exemption - evidence that was illegallyseized may be used in court if it can be shown that it would have inevitably been discovered
WEEKS v U.S
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
NIX v WILLIAMS
18. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
WEEKS v U.S
BRADY v U.S
19. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
ILLINOIS v GATES
MARYLAND v BUIE
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
20. 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
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
21. 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
IN RE GAULT...
CARROLL v U.S
BRADY v U.S
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
22. 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....
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
23. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
24. (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
ELKINS v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
25. 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...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
26. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
U.S. v HENSLEY
ILLINOIS v GATES
MARYLAND v BUIE
27. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
28. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
U.S. v DUNN
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
29. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
COLORADO v BERTINE
U.S. v SOKOLOW
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
IN RE WINSHIP...
30. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
MARYLAND v BUIE
31. The standard proof in a juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt
IN RE GAULT...
IN RE WINSHIP...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
32. Evidence that is unlawfully seized by any official cannot be used in federal court; the exclusionary rule is applied to the federal courts
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ELKINS v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
33. 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
DELAWARE v PROUSE
FLORIDA v ROYER
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
34. The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
NIX v WILLIAMS
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
35. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ELKINS v U.S
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
SHERMAN v U.S....
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
U.S. v SALERNO
37. 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
SHERMAN v U.S....
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
38. 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
TERRY v OHIO
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
39. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
IN RE GAULT...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
40. 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
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
ROPER v SIMMONS...
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v LEON
41. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
BRADY v U.S
42. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
NEW JERSEY v TLO
COLORADO v BERTINE
43. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
MAPP v OHIO
SHERMAN v U.S....
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
FLORIDA v ROYER
44. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
U.S. v SALERNO
WILSON v ARKANSAS
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
MARYLAND v BUIE
45. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
MARYLAND v BUIE
SINGER v U.S
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
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
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
WEEKS v U.S
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
47. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WEEKS v U.S
HARRIS v U.S.
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
48. 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
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v HAVENS
49. Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi)
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
McNEIL v WISCONSIN...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
WILSON v SEITER...
50. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
U.S. v HAVENS
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ILLINOIS v GATES
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D