Q&A Hero

Q: The landmark case in which the Supreme Court called for a ban on the death penalty in Georgia, ruling its law was capricious, and hence, cruel and unusual punishment is: a. Furman v. Georgia b. Coker v. Department of Corrections c. Gregg v. Georgia d. Ford v. Georgia

Q: Which amendment, known as the Equal Rights Amendment, states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex?"A. Thirteenth AmendmentB. Fifteenth AmendmentC. Eighteenth AmendmentD. None of the above.

Q: In Brown II, the Court said that the primary duty of implementing the decision and ending school segregation rested with what political body?A. Local school boardsB. District courtsC. CongressD. U.S. Supreme Court

Q: The Supreme Court has not prohibited execution of: a. juveniles b. the mentally ill c. the handicapped d. the mentally retarded

Q: The definition of cruel and unusual punishment is: a. established by state referendum. b. dependent on society. c. defined in the Eighth Amendment. d. specifically stated by the Supreme Court.

Q: Which of the following statements best describes the Court's decision in Sweatt v. Painter?A. The Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas Law School based on the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy.B. The Court ruled Sweatt should be admitted to the Texas Law School because the law school for black students was not equal to the law school for white students.C. The Court overturned Plessy, arguing that it did not matter if the two facilities were equal or not because segregation implied inferiority.D. The Court ruled in favor of the Texas Law School, arguing its decision not to admit Sweatt passed the "strict scrutiny" test.

Q: Which Supreme Court justice argued that the "Constitution is color-blind," in his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson?A. Henry BrownB. Edward WhiteC. John Marshall HarlanD. Roger Taney

Q: The ______________helped indigent defendants through release on recognizance (ROR).. a. American Civil Liberties Union b. Judiciary Act of 1789. c. Bail Reform Act of 1966. d. Bail Reform Act of 1984.

Q: Randall Martinez, a Hispanic man, was convicted in a Texas court for the murder of a security guard during a bank robbery. Texas allows for the death penalty to be given when certain aggravating circumstances accompany a murder. A defendant may be sentenced to death if any two of the following three factors are present. The jury must consider (1) whether the murder was committed in the course of a robbery,; (2) whether the murder was shamelessly gross and disgusting and (3) whether the murder victim was a minor.Prior to Martinez's sentencing, the judge, William "Wild Bill" Houston, instructed the jurors that all murders are inherently gross and disgusting and that they must include that as one of the aggravating circumstances of this crime. He also said that Hispanics are genetically prone to violent and anti-social behavior and are not fit for society. The jury returned with a death sentence for Martinez, having found that the murder was gross and disgusting, and that it was committed in the course of a robbery.The intermediate court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court upheld Martinez's conviction and the death sentence. In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Martinez relied on the findings of a study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. The study showed that, in Texas murder trials, Hispanic defendants were 40 percent more likely than African American defendants, and 75 percent more likely than white defendants to get the death penalty. defendants. In murder cases tried before Judge Houston, 90 percent of Hispanic received the death penalty, but only 40 percent of African American defendants and 25 percent of white defendants were sentenced to death.Based on this information, if you were a Supreme Court justice, would you overturn Martinez's sentence? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment in regard to the death penalty? What is the primary limitation the Court has recognized on the application of the death penalty, and does it apply to the Martinez case? Explain your reasoning and justify your opinion with reference to cases involving the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Q: In United States v. Salerno, the Supreme Court stated that __________under the Bail Reform Act of 1984 did not violate due process or the Eighth Amendment. a. pretrial release b. mandatory detention for murderers c. requiring house arrest for child molesters d. preventive detention

Q: Bail set at a figure higher than an amount "reasonably ______________" is excessive under the Eighth Amendment.a. calculated to fulfill its purposeb. affordable for the defendant to producec. necessary to sanction the defendantd. designed to make pretrial release possible

Q: The right to be represented at a criminal trial by a competent attorney is widely viewed as fundamental in a modern democracy. However, the Supreme Court has recognized this right only relatively recently, making it binding on the states. How has the right to counsel evolved over time? Discuss the Supreme Court cases that have extended the right to counsel to indigents. At what stages are the criminally accused entitled to counsel? Do you agree with the Court's reasoning regarding the stages at which counsel should be provided? In your opinion, is the right to counsel essential to a fair trial? Should the right to counsel be extended beyond criminal trials to include civil trials as well? Does the right to represent oneself outweigh the need for counsel? Should counsel be provided to individuals over their expressed wishes to represent themselves?

Q: The practice established for individuals deemed a threat to society or likely to flee is: a. Involuntary commitment b. The Bail Reform Act of 1966 c. Preventive detention d. Protective custody

Q: Though in the past some states have approved of executing offenders as young as 15, the Supreme Court has held that no one who was under ________when they committed a capital offense shall be sentenced to death. a. 16 b. 17 c. 18 d. 19

Q: Voir dire is a critical component of a criminal trial. It is at this stage that prosecutors and defense attorneys may exclude potential jurors for cause or through the use of peremptory challenges. Explain the differences between these two methods of removal and how attorneys use them. Are there limitations on the use of peremptory challenges by either the prosecution or the defense? If so, what are they? Has the Court provided working rules to help defendants prove that peremptory challenges have been used in a discriminatory manner? If so, what are those rules?

Q: What are the three main provisions of the double jeopardy clause? How has the Court interpreted "the "same offense"?

Q: The general rule under the Eighth Amendment is that punishments must be: a. consistent with international standards. b. approved by a unanimous jury. c. proportional or directly related to the case. d. in adherence with the biblical standard of "an eye for an eye."

Q: Why did the Court rule that sex offender registries do not violate the due process clause?

Q: The prohibition against excessive fines: a. has been incorporated to apply to the states. b. does not apply in civil cases. c. limits punitive damages in civil cases d. does not apply in criminal cases.

Q: Why did the Court rule that the defendant's sentence in Solem v. Helm violated the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment?

Q: Which has not been held to be cruel and unusual punishment? a. Execution of anyone under 18 when they committed a capital offense. b. Execution of the mentally ill or mentally retarded. c. Execution method presenting substantial risk of serious harm. d. Execution by firing squad.

Q: The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines: a. applies to states because of the Fourteenth Amendment. b. applies to states because it is an important part of our system of justice. c. does not apply to any states. d. does not apply to all states, but does apply to some.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court strike down Georgia's death penalty in Furman v. Georgia but uphold it in Gregg v. Georgia only three years later?

Q: According to the "loss of liberty rule" established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, what indigent defendants are eligible for counsel at the government's expense?

Q: Which is not a purpose of bail? a. Maintain the presumption of innocence. b. Guarantee the appearance of the accused in court. c. Sanction the offender. d. Allow the accused to organize their defense.

Q: In what way did the Court's ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright extend the right to counsel?

Q: Bail may not be denied in: a. capital cases. b. cases involving the death penalty. c. when the accused has threatened trial witnesses. d. all homicide cases.

Q: Bail is forfeited when: a. the defendant is found guilty. b. the defendant is acquitted. c. the defendant doesn"t appear in court. d. the defendant has to be apprehended by a bail agent.

Q: Which one of the following statements is true?A. A defendant who robs multiple victims at once can be tried in separate trials for robbing each victim until a guilty verdict is reached.B. Separate governments (including separate states) can prosecute an individual for the same incident if it occurred in multiple jurisdictions.C. The government can appeal a verdict of not guilty.D. None of the above.

Q: Which amendment contains the double jeopardy clause?A. Fourth AmendmentB. Fifth AmendmentC. Sixth AmendmentD. Eighth Amendment

Q: The Supreme Court" "proportionality analysis" of sentences includes all of the following, except: a. the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty. b. the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction. c. the sentences imposed for the commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. d. an analysis of punishments for the same offense from an historical perspective.

Q: Which two justices argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances in their decisions in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?A. Douglas and StewartB. Marshall and StewartC. Brennan and MarshallD. Marshall and Douglas

Q: Courts have used all of the following in assessing what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, except whether the punishment: a. "shocks the general conscience" of a civilized society. b. is specifically prohibited in the Eighth Amendment. c. is unnecessarily cruel. d. goes beyond legitimate penal aims.

Q: The Bail Reform Act of 1984 established the practice of: a. preventive detention for people deemed a threat or likely to flee. b. assigning lawyers with the responsibility of seeing to it that their clients appear when directed. c. permitting a property bond in lieu of cash. d. third-party custody.

Q: Which one of the following statements is not true?A. The Supreme Court has ruled that less-than-unanimous verdicts violate the Sixth Amendment.B. The Supreme Court has ruled that juries can be smaller than twelve people.C. The Supreme Court has ruled that it violates the Constitution to intentionally eliminate prospective jurors based solely on race.D. The Supreme Court has ruled that it violates the Constitution to intentionally eliminate prospective jurors based solely on gender.

Q: Under asset forfeiture, the most frequently seized assets are: a. firearms b. real estate c. vehicles d. electronics

Q: In Wilson v. Seiter, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners must not only prove prison conditions are objectively cruel and unusual but also show that they exist because of officials':a. culpable negligenceb. deliberate indifferencec. criminal negligenced. willful disregard of the conditions.

Q: Which of the following circumstances did the Supreme Court say violated the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment?A. A judge removed a disruptive and abusive defendant, and the trial proceeded without the accused present.B. A child witness testified behind a screen so the child would not have to see the defendant.C. A child witness testified on a closed-circuit television so the child would not have to see the defendant.D. All of the above.

Q: The Supreme Court held that any amount of bail exceeding that necessary to ensure a return to trial violated the Eighth Amendment in:a. Stack v. Boyleb. Gregg v. Georgiac. Solem v. Helmd. Ingraham v. Wright

Q: Which of the following statements about jury selection is not true?A. Attorneys have an unlimited number of "challenges for cause."B. Judges may conduct initial interviews and excuse certain classes of people, including felons and the mentally ill.C. In making a peremptory challenge, an attorney is required to state a reason for dismissing a juror.D. All of the above.

Q: Which amendment prohibits excessive bail?A. Fourth AmendmentB. Fifth AmendmentC. Sixth AmendmentD. Eighth Amendment

Q: At the end of 2010, all 36 states with the death penalty authorized _______as a method of execution. a. the gas chamber b. lethal injection c. the electric chair d. hanging

Q: The Supreme Court has never incorporated this segment of the Sixth Amendment to apply to the states, although it does fall within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. a. Being informed of the accusation. b. Right to a jury trial. c. Right to compulsory process. d. Confrontation rights.

Q: How has the Court ruled on the right to state-funded counsel for indigent defendants during the appeals process?A. The right extends through the first obligatory appeal but not to discretionary appeals.B. The right extends through discretionary appeals, including appeals to the Supreme Court.C. The right extends to all discretionary appeals except to the U.S. Supreme Court.D. The right does not extend to any appeals.

Q: Gideon v. Wainwright overruled the Supreme Court's decision in what previous case?A. Powell v. AlabamaB. Argersinger v. HamlinC. Johnson v. ZerbstD. Betts v. Brady

Q: The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to counsel during: a. civil proceedings. b. hostile contractual negotiations. c. criminal proceedings. d. any and all court proceedings

Q: The test used by courts when determining whether pretrial identification procedures were constitutional is the: a. harmless error test b. totality of the circumstances test c. preponderance of the evidence test d. undue influence test

Q: Which of the following statements best describes the Supreme Court's decision in Powell v. Alabama (the "Scottsboro boys" case)?A. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel for every defendant.B. Unusual circumstances (i.e., capital offenses) necessitate counsel to ensure fairness for the defendants.C. The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee defendants the right to counsel.D. The defendants in Powell v. Alabama received an adequate defense given the circumstances of the crime.

Q: Which is not one of the reasons the Sixth Amendment requires a speedy trial: a. uncertainty about the outcome causes undue stress. b. some defendants remain in jail because they cannot afford or have been denied bail. c. the government incurs additional expenses. d. cases generally improve with more time.

Q: You are a Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your opinion? You should identify and "resolve" the complex legal issues present. The question brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in deciding this case. This is not to suggest that there are "right" answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.Due to concerns about drug use and violence in schools, the Westminster Board of Education adopted a policy that allowed, but did not mandate, schools in their system to take steps necessary for the protection of students and to promote a positive learning environment. Jefferson High School introduced policies aimed at preventing exactly the type of behavior of concern to the board. One action was the installation of metal detectors at all school entrances. In addition, the school hired security guards and gave them the authority to conduct random "pat down" searches on students, including searches of bags and backpacks.The school also instituted a drug-testing system whereby students were randomly selected for tests. A teacher or administrator who suspected a student was under the influence of drugs or alcohol could send the student to the school nurse to be tested. The nurse could also select students for testing. The nurse had materials available for a variety of tests, including breath, blood, and urine tests. The samples taken from students were sent to an independent lab for analysis.The high school's principal, Brett Dilfer, received an anonymous letter informing him that Dorsey Dunn, a seventeen-year-old senior, kept marijuana in his locker, used it personally and sold it to other students at school. Based on this information, Principal Dilfer searched Dunn's locker and found several ounces of marijuana and a half-empty bottle of vodka. The security guards then searched Dunn and found rolling papers and a small amount of marijuana. The principal sent Dunn to the nurse for testing. Over his objections, the nurse obtained blood and urine samples and forced him to take a breath test.Dilfer called the local police and turned over the drugs and alcohol to them. Although they did not have a warrant, the police officers then went to the school parking lot and searched Dunn's 1968 Camaro. They found more marijuana in the glove compartment, a handgun under the driver's seat, and several car stereos in the trunk that appeared to have been stolen. When the police asked Dunn about the evidence, he said, "Yeah, the stuff's mine." He was placed under arrest, read his Miranda warnings, and taken to the police station. The police discovered that the stereos had recently been reported stolen from a local Best Buy store. They also determined that the car was not owned by Dunn, but was registered in his father's name.Based on the evidence given to them by the school, what they discovered in his car, and Dunn's statement, the police charged Dunn with drug possession, illegal possession of a firearm (he had no permit), and grand theft for the stereos found in his car. The results of Dunn's drug tests were positive, indicating that he had marijuana and alcohol in his system at the time of the tests. He was immediately expelled from school.The trial court judge threw out the statement Dunn made to police prior to being read his Miranda rights, but Dunn, a minor, was convicted of the charges filed against him. Because of new criminal guidelines in Westminster County that allowed juveniles to be tried as adults for certain crimesincluding drug possession and grand theftDunn was sentenced to twenty years at a state maximum security prison. He appealed to the intermediate court of appeals, where his conviction was upheld. He appealed to the state supreme court, which affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court. He then brought his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.As a Supreme Court justice, you are presented with several important legal questions in this case. Was the school justified in conducting random searches of students without probable cause? Were the intrusions made on students (searches, collection of blood and urine samples) unreasonable or unduly burdensome? Was the school exerting its proper authority in conducting the search of Dunn and his locker? Were the drug tests conducted on him reasonable? How do you deal with the involvement of the local police and their subsequent search of Dunn's car? Was the trial court judge correct in throwing out Dunn's statement to the police prior to being read his Miranda rights? Would you uphold his conviction? Justify your opinion.

Q: You are a Supreme Court justice assigned to write the majority opinion in the following case. How would you resolve it? What precedent would you cite to support your opinion? You should identify and "resolve" the complex legal issues present. The question brings up some factual situations and legal questions not directly addressed in the cases we have discussed. However, those cases should provide some guidance to you in making your decision. This is not to suggest that there are "right" answers to these questions, but a strong argument will be well organized, logically argued, and supported through reference to Court decisions.On the night of October 4, 1995, Brett Freeman was found stumbling along the side of the road in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. A police officer, Paul Tagliabue, saw Freeman, stopped his patrol car, and offered to drive Freeman home. Later, Tagliabue was quoted as saying he believed that "Freeman was drunk and just needed to get home to sleep off his binge." Freeman accepted the ride, and Tagliabue drove him home. He had to assist Freeman out of the car and into his living room. As they were walking into the house, the officer asked Freeman where he had been drinking that night. To this Freeman replied, "At the Pig's Eye Bar on 3rd Street. I took my girlfriend's car there, but could not find my keys when I left. That is why I was walking home."Upon entering the house, specifically the living room, Tagliabue spotted a white residue, a pot pipe, and other drug paraphernalia lying on and around the coffee table. As a result, he asked Freeman if the paraphernalia was his. Freeman replied, "Yeah, some of it." During the entire conversation Tagliabue noted that Freeman slurred his words, could not stand without support, and seemed to be nodding off. However, he did say that he was able to answer both of the questions with little trouble. After Freeman fell asleep on the couch, Tagliabue called a backup squad and sat down to wait for them to arrive. Based on the drug paraphernalia in the living room, Tagliabue and the backup squad began to search the house.By this time Freeman's roommates, Raymont Sapp and Robert Alstott, arrived home. They were incensed that the police were searching the house and immediately called their attorney. In the time that it took for the lawyer to arrive, the police searched the living room where Freeman was sleeping, his bedroom, the kitchen, the basement, and the attic. They found several marijuana plants under a hot light in Freeman's bedroom and a load of marijuana leaves drying in the basement. Additionally, they found several other unidentified illicit drugs in the refrigerator, about $10,000 in a cookie jar, and three handguns taped under the kitchen table. The officers also searched the entire backyard. Beside the garbage cans, which were about seventy-five yards from the house, the investigating officers found empty bags lined with a white powdery residue.All three roommates were placed under arrest, and Sapp's and Alstott's bedrooms were searched. These searches turned up more marijuana plants. The three roommates were taken to the police station. Freeman was put in a holding cell to sleep off his night of drinking, and Sapp and Alstott were booked. During the booking each was told that he would have to submit to urine and blood tests administered by a local doctor. Additionally, the police had the doctor draw a vial of blood from Freeman while he slept in his cell.At the same time that the search of the house was going on, two other police officers were dispatched to the Pig's Eye to look for the car Freeman drove that night. They found the car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition. A thorough search of the car turned up more marijuana, another handgun, five boxes of ammunition for the gun, and another $10,000. The car was impounded and taken directly to the police station.Based on the evidence obtained in and behind the house, as well as the drug tests performed at the police station, Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were arrested for drug possession with intent to sell, for illegally using illicit drugs, and for possessing handguns without permits. Freeman and his girlfriend, Jennifer Ryskoski, were separately charged with possession of drugs and illegally possessing an unregistered concealed handgun in the car.Ryskoski was acquitted because the prosecution could not prove that she knew the drugs or gun were in her car on the night in question. Freeman, Sapp, and Alstott were convicted of possessing drugs with the intent to sell, of using illegal substances, and of possessing handguns without proper permits.As a Supreme Court justice, how do you resolve the intricate legal questions in this case revolving around the Fourth Amendment? Was the officer justified in calling for backup and then searching the house without obtaining a warrant? Should the police have been able to search the house while Freeman was passed out based on the paraphernalia that was in the living room? Should the officers have searched Sapp's and Alstott's rooms after they were arrested? Was the backyard search justified? Should the police have been able to go and search the car that Freeman drove that night based on what they found at the house? Were the blood and urine tests in this case legitimate, or did they violate the suspects' Fourth Amendment rights? What, if any, of the evidence would you admit at trial? Should any of it be excluded, or is the evidence admissible? Justify your opinion.

Q: The case establishing that indigent defendants accused of a felony must be provided a lawyer was: a. Barker v. Wingo. b. Powell v. Alabama. c. Gideon v. Wainwright. d. Argensinger v. Hamlin.

Q: One Sixth Amendment guarantee is: a. the defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses. b. having all court proceedings on the record. c. having an independent investigation. d. indictment by a grand jury.

Q: On June 5, 1989, FBI agent Steve Moe received a tip from a well-known actor in Minneapolis, that Roger Sviggum, another well-known actor, was manufacturing illegal drugs (cocaine and heroin) in a laboratory located on his land "up north," and that he was growing marijuana on land surrounding this lakefront property. Acting on this information, Moe dispatched agents to the northern Minnesota property. Over the course of the next week, these agents observed numerous "strange" cars and other vehicles going in and out of the ranch.Based on the initial "tip" and these observations, Moe sought to obtain a warrant to search the Sviggum residence. He first approached Magistrate Hottinger and told him about the "tip" and the agents' observations. Hottinger, however, felt insufficient probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Rather than attempting to build a better case, Moe went to a second magistrate, Pawlenty, who issued a warrant to search only the Sviggum residence (i.e., the main building).a. Should Magistrate Pawlenty have issued the warrant? Why or why not?Moe, along with four other officers, sought to execute the warrant. They drove up to the Sviggum residence and, parked rather far from the house because a silver Mercedes-Benz was blocking the driveway. They knocked on the door to the house, and Sviggum's wife opened it. After she told them that Roger was not in the house (he was, according to her, practicing his lines for a new show), Moe explained that they had a warrant to search the home. She let them in, and the five officers began a full search of the house.The officers found nothing until they spotted a closed door at the side of the house. They asked Mrs. Sviggum about this, and she told them that they rented out that part of the home to a boarder, one Monica Hahn. Upon obtaining Mrs. Sviggum's permission, the agents entered the Hahn quarters. There they found not only Ms. Hahn, but also a sophisticated laboratory they suspected was used for the manufacturing of drugs.b. Was it reasonable for police to enter Hahn's quarters? Why or why not?As the agents moved toward Hahn, she began ingesting chemicals located on a table on which she was working. They immediately, but gently, seized her and placed her under arrest. Because she had swallowed some of the "evidence," however, two agents rushed her to a local hospital for stomach X-rays. At the hospital, Hahn refused to give her consent for the procedure. The doctor, acting under police orders, took the X-rays anyway and, the resultant pictures revealed the presence of substances used to manufacture heroin.c. Was the X-ray procedure a reasonable search and seizure? Why or why not?Meanwhile, finding nothing else in the Sviggum residence, agents decided to search the silver Mercedes in the driveway. They asked Mrs. Sviggum who owned the car. She replied that it was hers, but that she would not give them consent to search it. The agents went back into the house, found the car keys, and unlocked the car without permission. In a suitcase in the trunk, they found large quantities of heroin. They placed Mrs. Sviggum under arrest and called for back-up officers.d. Was the search of the car reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?OnAs soon as other officers arrived on the scene, two FBI agents decided to examine the rest of the property (the land surrounding the house) to see if they could locate Roger, and to determine if, in fact, the Sviggums were growing marijuana on the premises. They did not have to walk very far to find what they were looking for. Right beyond the fence enclosing the ranch, they spotted acres of marijuana plants. And, just a quarter mile farther away, they saw Roger, dressed in a business suit, talking to two teenage girls.As the agents rushed toward Roger, eventually arresting him, the girls started quickly walking away from the scene. One of the officers stopped them and identified himself as a police officer. Next, he "patted" them down." He found nothing on the first; on the second, Linda Lewinsky, he felt "something" bulky in her jacket pocket. The agent reached in and removed the mass, which turned out to be a huge wad of $100 bills and a negligible amount of heroin. He arrested Ms. Lewinsky.e. Was this "frisk" reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?f. Based on your answers to questions a"e, can you now reach conclusions about the admissibility of the evidence? Would you exclude any or all of the evidence gathered against the Sviggums, Hahn, and Lewinsky? Why or why not?g. Would your answers to questions a"f be different if the year were 1968 rather than 1989?

Q: The Supreme Court has held that before interrogating suspects who are in custody, police must warn them of their right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during questioning (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Unless suspects have received these warnings, the statements they make cannot be used against them at trial. However, the Court has substantially refined this requirement so that it applies only in certain circumstances. Discuss the Court's interpretation of "custodial interrogation" and "coercive environments." What do these terms mean, and what effect has the Court recognized that these situations have on the admissibility of statements? As always, discussion of the cases covered will enhance your answers.

Q: Whether a trial is sufficiently speedy is determined by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, ________________, and the harm caused.a. court review of the factsb. the prosecution's waiver of the rightc. the relevance of the delayd. the defendant's assertion of this right

Q: Ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be based on the: a. gravity of the offense charged. b. accessibility of witnesses for the defense. c. failure to take normal and routine steps before trial. d. counsel's inexperience compared to the complexity of the case.

Q: The Court has held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone of a federal crime (Weeks v. United States). In what case did the Court first discuss this protection regarding evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure in relation to the states? In what case did the Court actually incorporate this protection to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment?

Q: A waiver of one's Sixth Amendment right to counsel must be all of the following, except: a. in writing. b. knowing. c. voluntary. d. intelligent.

Q: The Supreme Court has recognized for some time that searches of individuals conducted incident to lawful arrest are permissible without a warrant (Weeks v. United States, 1914). However, the Court has often interpreted Weeks quite broadly, allowing the searches of homes, automobiles, and so on. Discuss the Court's pattern regarding allowable searches. Specifically, under what conditions are searches of individuals allowable without a warrant? How far does that right to search extend, and under what circumstances? How have the Court's decisions regarding the right to search automobiles, homes, and property changed over time?Do you feel that the evolution of the Court's search and seizure policy has been consistent? If not, identify instances where the Court has diverged significantly from its previous decisions and offer explanations for such changes.

Q: Mempa v. Rhay held that a convicted offender has the right to assistance of counsel at ___________in which the sentence has been deferred. a. inmate disciplinary hearings b. probation revocation hearings c. hearings before a parole board d. inmate grievance boards

Q: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment to mean that an accused has the constitutional right to counsel at: a. every critical stage during a criminal proceeding. b. any critical stage, excluding post-trial appeals. c. every critical stage after arraignment. d. any stage in the criminal investigation.

Q: Describe three exceptions to the warrant requirement. What is the ultimate key to the Fourth Amendment, according to Chief Justice John Roberts?

Q: In Brewer v. Williams, the Christian Burial Speech case (involving the search for the body of a missing girl), the Supreme Court determined there was:a. an inevitable articulation exception to the Sixth Amendment.b. a deliberate elicitation of an incriminating statement.c. the functional equivalent of interrogation.d. intimidation resulting in an involuntary statement.

Q: Explain the rationale the Court used to determine that the use of a GPS tracking device violated the Fourth Amendment in Jones.

Q: A statement obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights will only be permitted in court to: a. corroborate the defendant's protestations of innocence. b. impeach the defendant's perjured testimony at trial. c. impeach defense witnesses during cross-examination. d. provide aggravating factors in the sentencing phase.

Q: Why did the Court refuse to suppress the evidence used to convict Herring in Herring v. U.S.?

Q: Massiah v. United States (1964) held that a critical stage requiring a lawyer includes when a defendant is:a. made aware a crime has been committed.b. approached by the police. c. determined to be indigent. d. charged with a crime.

Q: What was the chief concern of Justice White in his Miranda dissent?

Q: Explain the good-faith exception that the Court created in United States v. Leon.

Q: The Star Chamber was: a. the old Supreme Court chamber located in the U.S. Capitol. b. an English court that tried people in secret with no regard to due process. c. a group of highly revered lawyers who drafted the Sixth Amendment. d. an 1880s theatrical group that taught the public the true meaning of "due process."

Q: According to the Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, when does the right to counsel begin?

Q: Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) held that: a. no Miranda warning is required during a stop and frisk. b. Miranda does not need to be given by private police. c. an individual being investigated by police may not be denied counsel. d. indigent defendants are entitled to a lawyer when seeking an appeal.

Q: The first prong of the two-pronged test to establish a claim of ineffective counsel requires the defendant to show: a. representation falling below an objective standard of reasonableness. b. representation whose incompetence "shocks the conscience." c. representation falling below community standards of excellence. d. representation that resulted in an unfavorable outcome.

Q: What is the exclusionary rule?

Q: What two criteria must be met for a consent search to be valid?

Q: Witness identification of a suspect is very important to investigations and is compelling evidence in a criminal trial. We have all seen the police lineups in movies, where individuals are led into a room to stand facing a two-way mirror allowing a victim or witness to pick out the individual they saw at the scene of the crime. The people in the lineup are selected to closely match the physical characteristics of the suspect and the procedure must not be done in such a way as to be unduly suggestive of who the suspect is. However, sometimes the police take a suspect to a victim's hospital room or simply bring a suspect to a crime scene and show him or her to witnesses. This show-up usually occurs immediately or shortly after a crime has occurred. This procedure is certainly more suggestive than a lineup, since there is only one person being brought before the witness. Why do you think the courts allow show-ups, but will review lineups to make sure they are not too suggestive? Is this really fair?

Q: Your best friend is facing a criminal trial for leaving the scene of an accident and DUI. She can't really afford to hire an attorney specializing in these offenses and wonders if she can defend herself in a trial. Can she? Why or why not? Should she?

Q: Explain the two limitations the Court has set on searches incident to a valid arrest.

Q: What guarantees are afforded to the criminally accused in the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment?