|
Answer Choice 1
|
Answer Choice 2
|
Answer Choice 3
|
Answer Choice 4
|
Selected Answer
|
|
Question 1: While addressing a crowd one day, Frank, the leader of a radical group devoted to preventing the extinction of the firefly says 'We have to go out right now and kill people to ensure the survival of the firefly.' Frank is arrested for incitement. Is Frank's speech protected by the First Amendment?
|
No, if the government can show that Frank's speech constituted a 'Clear and present danger' to the community
|
Definitely yes, because the government can never punish anyone for mere speech
|
Definitely not, because the government may punish any speech that may put people in danger.
|
No, if the government can show that Frank's speech was intended to incite imminent lawless conduct and was likely to cause such conduct.
|
|
Question 2: The prohibition or punishment of possession of which of the following is most likely to be upheld by a court?
|
drawings that include child pornography
|
a medical textbook that contains many pictures of naked people
|
all of the above are definitely obscene
|
a classic painting that contains a naked woman
|
|
Question 3: Under the current rules, which of the following constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment'?
|
The denial of bail to a person on trial for murder
|
All of these constitute cruel and unusual punishment
|
The imposition of the death penalty
|
A sentence of 2 months in prison for 'being a drug addict'
|
|
Question 4: The 'exclusionary rule' of Mapp v. Ohio is based on which provision in the Constitution?
|
The Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures
|
The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause
|
The freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment
|
The Fifth Amendment's right to counsel
|
|
Question 5: John is on trial for possession of illegal narcotics. Before trial, John's lawyer, Lisa, argues that the police searched John's car without probable cause and thus found the narcotics. Therefore, argues Lisa, the evidence should be excluded. The judge holds a pre-trial hearing and, after the hearing, announces 'I find, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the police officer had probable cause to search John's car.' The judge thus allows in the evidence and John is convicted. On appeal, which of the following is correct?
|
John's conviction must be reversed, because police always need a warrant to search an automobile; probable cause is not enough
|
John's conviction can be affirmed, because the judge's conduct and decision were proper
|
John's conviction must be reversed, because all elements of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
|
John's conviction can be affirmed, because even if the search was illegal, the fruits of the search should still be admissible in court, as it would make no sense to let John off on some crummy technicality
|
|
Question 6: An officer may 'stop and frisk' a person on the street only if...
|
there is probable cause to believe that the person is planning to commit a crime
|
there is reasonable suspicion that the person is planning to commit a crime
|
the officer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is planning to commit a crime
|
the officer suspects that the person is planning to commit a crime
|
|
Question 7: Officer Gressive bursts into the home of Criminal without a warrant and confiscates Criminal's computer. On the hard drive, he finds the whereabouts of a stash of illegal handguns that Criminal was hoarding. based on this information, Officer Gressive finds the handguns. Later, he arrests Criminal for possession of the handguns. Which fact, if true, would allow the handguns to be used as evidence against Criminal?
|
Rat, a friend of Criminal, had told the police the same information that was found on the hard drive on that same day.
|
The computer was in plain view once Officer Gressive entered the house
|
Officer Gressive had probable cause to believe there was evidence of a crime in the house
|
Criminal expected Officer Gressive to break into his house without a warrant
|
|
Question 8: Jane is on trial for murder before a jury. The case is presided over by Judge Prude. Before the trial, Judge Prude says to Jane 'I can't stand the thought of seeing you in my courtroom based on what you did.' You can watch the case through a one way monitor from a side room. Your attorney can sit in the courtroom and run the trial for you.' Judge Prude goes through with this plan and Jane is convicted. On appeal, Jane's conviction should be...
|
affirmed, because a judge has a right to control his or her courtroom and Jane got to watch the case anyway
|
reversed, because Judge Prude said that he believed that Jane is guilty before the trial even started
|
affirmed, because even if he was wrong, Judge Prude's mistake is almost certainly 'harmless error'
|
revsersed, because Jane's right to 'confront' the prosecution's witnesses was violated.
|
|
Question 9: In which of the following cases has Doug's right to counsel been violated?
|
Doug is tried and convicted for felony robbery and setenced to probation without being afforded a chance to hire an attorney to represent him
|
Doug is tried and convicted of misdemeanor marijuana possession and sentenced to 2 weeks in prison without being afforded a chance to hire an attorney to represent him
|
Doug's right to counsel has been violated in all of these cases
|
Doug, an indigent person has an attorney appointed for him by the court for his murder trial; he is convicted at trial and the government refuses to keep paying his counsel for any appeal
|
|
Question 10: Officer Chaser is chasing Thief, a criminal who committed robbery right on front of Officer Chaser's very eyes. Thief runs right through the front door of the home of Luckless. Officer Chaser runs right through the front door in hot pursuit of Thief. Unfortunately, Thief gets away. However, Officer Chaser, while in Luckless' house, does see an illegal machine gun mounted on the wall. He confiscates the gun and places Luckless under arrest. Can the gun be used against Luckless at trial?
|
Yes, because Chaser was there legally because of the doctrine of 'hot pursuit' and the gun was in plain view once he was in the house
|
No, because 'hot pursuit' does not include the right to enter privtae property
|
Yes, because even if the gun was seized illegally, that is no reason to allow Luckless to get away with possession of the illegal gun
|
No, because Chaser did not have a warrant to enter Luckless' home.
|
|
Question 11: In which of the following does Jill have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
|
the contents of the trunk of her car when she is driving on a public street
|
the odor of heroin that is eminating from her suitcase
|
Her garbage that has been accumulating on the street curb on front of her house after she throws the garbage out to the curb
|
her handwriting sample that she used to sign a check before giving it over to a supermarket cashier.
|
|
Question 12: In which of the following places will the government have the toughest time regulating speech?
|
on a military base
|
a public park
|
inside a public school
|
inside a government building
|
|
Question 13: The best argument against allowing governments to give school vouchers that will be used to pay private school tuition is that...
|
vouchers inherently violate the equal protection rights of the people who will not get vouchers
|
vouchers violate the due process rights of public school teachers and administrators because it might force the public school systems to cut back on jobs.
|
public education is a fundamental right and supporting private schools with government money to support private schools will hurt public education in the long run
|
the fact that the money will be used for religious schools violates the establishment of religion clause of the constitution
|
|
Question 14: Which of the following statements cannot be used against Suspect in a court of law?
|
Officer arrests Suspect and reads him his Miranda rights. Suspect then asks for a lawyer. Officer calls Suspect's lawyer. While the lawyer is on the way over, Officer continues to interrogate Suspect. During this interrogation, Suspect confesses to a crime.
|
Officer is worried that Suspect has planted a bomb nearby and so he asks Suspect 'Where did you plant the bomb?' Suspect answers, 'Over there!'
|
Officer stops Suspect in the street and asks if Suspect knows anything about a certain homicide. Suspect could freely walk away, but instead answers that he committed the homicide.
|
Officer arrests Suspect. In the police car on the way to the precinct, Suspect blurts out that he committed a homicide.
|
|
Question 15: Which of the following actions by a public school would be permissible under the First Amendment?
|
Instituting a 'moment of slient prayer' to start each school day
|
none of these would be permissible
|
Instituting a 'moment of slience' to start each school day during which students may pray if they so choose
|
requiring children to recite the Pledge of Alliegance
|
|
Question 16: The city of New Tudor passes a law that states that no person may hold a rally on a city street during morning or evening rush hour without a permit from the city. The city consistently refuses to grant permits for rallies because the rallies wold interfere with commutes trying to get to and from work. Jane applies for a permit to hold a rally on Monday morning at 8:00 to demand that the government name the wild turkey as the new national bird to replace the bald eagle. The city denies the permit and instead grants Jane a permit to hold her rally on Saturday instead. If Jane sues and claims that her freedom of speech has been abridged, she will probably...
|
win, because her freedom of expression is being abridged
|
lose, because a city government is allowed to completely control the types of speeches that are made in the street.
|
win, if she can show that the city's regulation is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose
|
lose, because the city's regulation appears to be a valid content-neutral, time, place and manner restriction
|
|
Essay Question: Mervin, a professional jewel thief, sold some stolen goods, including a sterling silver cigar box, to Giles. Several weeks later, acting on an anonymous tip, the police raided Giles' store and arrested Giles. During the raid, which was done without a warrant, the police seized the goods that Mervin sold to Giles and and some records in which Giles had recorded the transaction.
Based on those records, the police obtained a warrant to search Mervin's home and he did so. The warrant stated that the police may search Mervin's house for "stolen jewels" or any evidence thereof. While searching the home, the police found some stolen jewels and 3 illegal assault rifles.
Based on the search, Mervin was placed under arrest. As he was being arrested, the police frisked Mervin and found an illegal handgun and 3 packets of cocaine in his pockets.
Officer Careful, who was arresting Mervin, was about to start reading Mervin his rights when Mervin blurted out, "Before I say anything, I want my lawyer; but I will tell you this: That's the last time I sell any hot merchandise to that son of a -----, Giles!"
a) Giles is charged with receving stolen property. He argues that the stolen property and the records should be excluded on Fourth Amendment grounds. Is he correct? Explain.
b) Irrespective of you answer as to part (a), assume that the stolen property and the records were excluded from Giles' trial because the judge found that the search violated the 4th Amendment. What impact, if any, does this ruling have on the search of Mervin's house? Is there anything the prosecution can argue that would validate the search of Mervin's house? Explain.
c) Irrespective of you answer as to part (b), assume that the court held that the warrant to search Mervin's house was valid. Mervin is charged with theft and illegal possession of the guns and cocaine. Mervin argues that the gun tat was found in his house should be excluded because it was beyond the scope of the search warrant. Is he correct? Why or why not?
d) Can the illegal handgun and the cocaine found on Mervin when he was arrested be used against him at trial? Why or why not?
e) Can Mervin's statement to the police be used against him at his trial? Please explain the reason(s) for your answer?
|