Question 1

In State v. Miller , the court held that

Accepted Answer

A)  the trial judge's denial of the requested adjournment was not an abuse of his broad discretion and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to effective representation. 
B)  Miller's right to be represented entailed the right to a public defender of his choice. 
C)  Miller's conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to accommodate a reasonable request for a brief delay so as to permit Miller an opportunity to confer with newly assigned counsel. 
D)  this was a rare case in which the doctrine of fundamental fairness mandated reversal of the defendant's conviction. 
A)  the trial judge's denial of the requested adjournment was not an abuse of his broad discretion and did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to effective representation. 
B)  Miller's right to be represented entailed the right to a public defender of his choice. 
C)  Miller's conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to accommodate a reasonable request for a brief delay so as to permit Miller an opportunity to confer with newly assigned counsel. 
D)  this was a rare case in which the doctrine of fundamental fairness mandated reversal of the defendant's conviction.

Question 2

Miranda v. Arizona is applied to the states through

Accepted Answer

A)  the common law. 
B)  the Ninth Amendment. 
C)  the Fourteenth Amendment. 
D)  mandamus. 
A)  the common law. 
B)  the Ninth Amendment. 
C)  the Fourteenth Amendment. 
D)  mandamus.

Question 3

A _______ is a pretrial motion that tests the applicability of the exclusionary rule to circumstances of the case.

Accepted Answer

A)  motion to withdraw 
B)  motion in limine 
C)  motion to suppress 
D)  demurrer 
A)  motion to withdraw 
B)  motion in limine 
C)  motion to suppress 
D)  demurrer

Question 4

A(n) _______ is a written accusation by the grand jury charging the accused with a criminal act.

Accepted Answer

A)  warrant 
B)  writ of habeas corpus 
C)  affirmation 
D)  indictment 
A)  warrant 
B)  writ of habeas corpus 
C)  affirmation 
D)  indictment

Question 5

In United States v. Cleveland , the court held that

Accepted Answer

A)  women sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such that an individual intentionally capturing close-up photos of such an image can be engaged in the crime of voyeurism. 
B)  images recovered from Cleveland's memory card established Mr. Cleveland's guilt on two counts of attempted voyeurism. 
C)  Cleveland's actions as observed by the park police on June 19, 2013, did provide a sufficient legal basis for the officers to initiate a nonconsensual stop or to place Mr. Cleveland under arrest. 
D)  Cleveland's actions as observed by the park police on June 19, 2013, did not provide a sufficient legal basis for the officers to initiate a nonconsensual stop or to place Mr. Cleveland under arrest. 
A)  women sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such that an individual intentionally capturing close-up photos of such an image can be engaged in the crime of voyeurism. 
B)  images recovered from Cleveland's memory card established Mr. Cleveland's guilt on two counts of attempted voyeurism. 
C)  Cleveland's actions as observed by the park police on June 19, 2013, did provide a sufficient legal basis for the officers to initiate a nonconsensual stop or to place Mr. Cleveland under arrest. 
D)  Cleveland's actions as observed by the park police on June 19, 2013, did not provide a sufficient legal basis for the officers to initiate a nonconsensual stop or to place Mr. Cleveland under arrest.

Question 6

In Sessoms v. Grounds , the court held that

Accepted Answer

A)  because Sessoms's response to the officers was a question, his desire for an attorney was ambiguous and unclear. 
B)  a suspect must clearly state any request for an attorney, which Sessoms failed to do. 
C)  Sessoms did not articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. 
D)  under the circumstances, a reasonable law enforcement officer would have understood Sessoms's statements as an unambiguous request for counsel, which should have cut off any further questioning under clear Supreme Court precedent. 
A)  because Sessoms's response to the officers was a question, his desire for an attorney was ambiguous and unclear. 
B)  a suspect must clearly state any request for an attorney, which Sessoms failed to do. 
C)  Sessoms did not articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. 
D)  under the circumstances, a reasonable law enforcement officer would have understood Sessoms's statements as an unambiguous request for counsel, which should have cut off any further questioning under clear Supreme Court precedent.

Question 7

The appellate test of fact finding in criminal law is

Accepted Answer

A)  whether the error was clearly erroneous. 
B)  whether no trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
C)  absence of substantial evidence. 
D)  preponderance of the evidence. 
A)  whether the error was clearly erroneous. 
B)  whether no trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 
C)  absence of substantial evidence. 
D)  preponderance of the evidence.

Question 8

In Dhiab v. Obama , the court

Accepted Answer

A)  found that public information is inextricably intertwined with classified and protected information, thus necessitating complete closure of the hearing. 
B)  found that Dhiab should be released because he was declared eligible in 2009 . 
C)  granted the government's request to completely close the entire preliminary injunction hearing to the public. 
D)  denied the government's request to completely close the entire preliminary injunction hearing to the public. 
A)  found that public information is inextricably intertwined with classified and protected information, thus necessitating complete closure of the hearing. 
B)  found that Dhiab should be released because he was declared eligible in 2009 . 
C)  granted the government's request to completely close the entire preliminary injunction hearing to the public. 
D)  denied the government's request to completely close the entire preliminary injunction hearing to the public.

Question 9

In People v. Perez, the court held that

Accepted Answer

A)  Perez was guilty of direct, rather than indirect, criminal contempt. 
B)  the judge should be disciplined for taking out what she saw as disrespect on an innocent bystander. 
C)  the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding of indirect criminal contempt. 
D)  viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state after considering the multiple ways a respondent may commit indirect criminal contempt, the state's evidence did not establish that Perez was guilty of indirect criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
A)  Perez was guilty of direct, rather than indirect, criminal contempt. 
B)  the judge should be disciplined for taking out what she saw as disrespect on an innocent bystander. 
C)  the evidence was sufficient to support the court's finding of indirect criminal contempt. 
D)  viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state after considering the multiple ways a respondent may commit indirect criminal contempt, the state's evidence did not establish that Perez was guilty of indirect criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In State v. Miller , the court held that

Miranda v. Arizona is applied to the states through

A _______ is a pretrial motion that tests the applicability of the exclusionary rule to circumstances of the case.

A(n) _______ is a written accusation by the grand jury charging the accused with a criminal act.

In United States v. Cleveland , the court held that

In Sessoms v. Grounds , the court held that

The appellate test of fact finding in criminal law is

In Dhiab v. Obama , the court

In People v. Perez, the court held that

Law and the Profession of Law

Ethics

Sources of the Law Cases

Sources of the Law Legislation

Trial and Appellate Courts

State and Federal Courts

Procedure in Civil Cases

Criminal Law

Torts Personal Injury and Compensation

Contracts and Commercial Law

The Law of Property

Family Law

Administrative Law and Procedure

Filters

Exam 8: The Law of Criminal Procedure

In State v. Miller , the court held that

Miranda v. Arizona is applied to the states through

A _______ is a pretrial motion that tests the applicability of the exclusionary rule to circumstances of the case.

A(n) _______ is a written accusation by the grand jury charging the accused with a criminal act.

In United States v. Cleveland , the court held that

In Sessoms v. Grounds , the court held that

The appellate test of fact finding in criminal law is

In Dhiab v. Obama , the court

In People v. Perez, the court held that

Law and the Profession of Law

Ethics

Sources of the Law Cases

Sources of the Law Legislation

Trial and Appellate Courts

State and Federal Courts

Procedure in Civil Cases

Criminal Law

Torts Personal Injury and Compensation

Contracts and Commercial Law

The Law of Property

Family Law

Administrative Law and Procedure

Filters