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. 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
STACK v BOYLE
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
WILSON v SEITER...
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
2. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
WILSON v SEITER...
COLORADO v BERTINE
3. Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and management of the criminal enterprise
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
STACK v BOYLE
WILSON v ARKANSAS
NIX v WILLIAMS
4. 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
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v HENSLEY
TAYLOR v TAINTOR
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
5. 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 LEON
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
6. Exclusionary Rule applied to the states - evidence unlawfully seized is inadmissible in court
U.S. v SALERNO
STACK v BOYLE
NIX v WILLIAMS
MAPP v OHIO
7. Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings
GAGNON v SCARPELLI...
NIX v WILLIAMS
U.S. v HAVENS
GREGG v GEORGIA...
8. 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 SALERNO
ILLINOIS v GATES
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
9. 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
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
MARYLAND v BUIE
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
10. The right to counsel begins at the point of focus
COLORADO v BERTINE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
11. 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
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
WILSON v SEITER...
D.C. v HELLER
ROPER v SIMMONS...
12. Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
CARROLL v U.S
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
13. 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
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v LEON
WEEKS v U.S
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
14. Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise
STACK v BOYLE
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ELKINS v U.S
15. Evidence illegally seized by a federal official cannot be used in federal court
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ILLINOIS v GATES
DELAWARE v PROUSE
WEEKS v U.S
16. A stop and frisk search may be performed when there isreasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law - past tense
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
U.S. v HENSLEY
17. There is no right to a jury trial for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court
GREGG v GEORGIA...
McKEIVER v PENNSYLVANIA...
MAPP v OHIO
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
18. 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
IN RE GAULT...
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v DUNN
WILSON v ARKANSAS
19. 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...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
20. 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
NEW JERSEY v TLO
SHERMAN v U.S....
HERRERA v COLLINS...
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
21. 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
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
U.S. v SOKOLOW
BRADY v U.S
22. Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v DUNN
ROPER v SIMMONS...
McCLESKEY v KEMP...
23. An illegally obtained confessions can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial
WILSON v SEITER...
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
SINGER v U.S
24. Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings
U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
25. 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
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
IN RE GAULT...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
26. 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
IN RE WINSHIP...
ILLINOIS v GATES
D.C. v HELLER
ARIZONA v FULMINANTE
27. (good faith exemption) evidence seized by reasonably well- trained officers acting in good faith - is admissible - even if the seizure technically violated the law
WILSON v ARKANSAS
U.S. v LEON
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
28. 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
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
SINGER v U.S
BRADY v U.S
U.S. v ROSS
29. No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.)
IN RE GAULT...
U.S. v DUNN
ELKINS v U.S
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
30. 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)
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v LEON
GREGG v GEORGIA...
ROPER v SIMMONS...
31. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ILLINOIS v GATES
32. 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
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
WOLFF v McDONNELL...
33. Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief
FLORIDA v ROYER
D.C. v HELLER
TERRY v OHIO
HERRERA v COLLINS...
34. A search cannot shock the conscience - and cannot be exploratory
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
35. 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
D.C. v HELLER
STACK v BOYLE
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
36. 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
MASSACHUSETTS v SHEPPARD
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
FLORIDA v ROYER
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
37. 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
ELKINS v U.S
U.S. v SALERNO
U.S. v ROSS
CALIFORNIA v GREENWOOD
38. 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 HAVENS
DELAWARE v PROUSE
MIRANDA v ARIZONA...
39. Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive - when involving mentally retarded defendants
ATKINS v VIRGINIA...
U.S. v SALERNO
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
MICHIGAN v HARVEY...
40. 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.
WILSON v SEITER...
REVES v ERNST AND YOUNG
TERRY v OHIO
41. 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
U.S. v 92 BUENA VISTA AVENUE
ILLINOIS v GATES
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
BRADY v U.S
42. The death penalty is not being administered equitably
MORRISSEY v BREWER...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v ROSS
ELKINS v U.S
43. Once suspects invoke their right to an attorney - officials must cease questioning the suspect until counsel is present
TERRY v OHIO
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
FLORIDA v ROYER
44. Defendants have no Constitutional right to waive a jury trial
NEW JERSEY v TLO
U.S. v SALERNO
SINGER v U.S
DUNCAN v LOUISIANA
45. Illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a witness who takes the stand during a trial
FURMAN v GEORGIA...
U.S. v HAVENS
ROCHIN v CALIFORNIA
ELKINS v U.S
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
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT...
U.S. v SOKOLOW
MINNICK v MISSISSIPPI...
47. 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
FLORIDA v BOSTICK
U.S. v SALERNO
WILSON v SEITER...
48. Even when armed with a warrant - the police generally must 'knock and announce' before entering a home
NIX v WILLIAMS
ILLINOIS v RODRIGUEZ
WILSON v ARKANSAS
FLORIDA v ROYER
49. 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
WEEKS v U.S
WILSON v SEITER...
HERRERA v COLLINS...
50. Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases
McCLESKEY v ZANT...
FLORIDA v ROYER
ESCOBEDO v ILLINOIS...
CALIFORNIA v HODARI D