Criminal Rights Cases Practice Quiz
text
1.
A man was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a
lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only
obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. The accused defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by
a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison. Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for the accused
violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? In a unanimous
opinion, the Court held that he had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942
decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right,
essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the
assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal
courts are necessities, not luxuries."
Your answer:
Katz v. United States, 1967
Powell v. Alabama, 1932
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
2.
A man w as charg
text
A fourteen-year-old girl was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her
and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments? No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that
searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict
standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the
purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that the girl may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more
thorough search of the purse.
Your answer:
California v. Santos, 1977
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
In re: Gault, 1967
A fourteen-year-
text
text
3.
A woman was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She
appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
(May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) The
Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of
the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." The accused had been convicted on the basis of
illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally
obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining
how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
A w oman w as co
Your answer:
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Lewis v. United States, 1980
Betts v. Brady, 1942
text
text
text
4.
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a crime victim
identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police
custody. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his
Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with
which he was charged. His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against selfincrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years
in prison on each count. Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his
confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present
during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They
argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The
Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is
the role of the police in protecting the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution?
The Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . ." The Sixth
Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense." But do the police have an obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights? If so, at what point in the
criminal justice process must the defendant learn of these rights? In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear
Miranda's case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar cases, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States,
and California v. Stewart. The Court combined the four cases. Since Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by
the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court in a 5 to 4 decision
in favor of Miranda. Briefly stated: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody. . . . As for the procedural safeguards to be employed . . . the following measures are required. Prior to any
questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive
effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any
manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.
Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not
deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter
Ernesto Miranda w
consents to be questioned...
Your answer:
United States v. Miranda, 1965
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
Miranda v. Phillips, 1964
text
5.
A jury found a man guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the state Supreme Court affirmed
the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. He challenged his remaining death sentence for murder,
claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Is
the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment?
No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under
all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the
careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. The death penalty statute of the state in
this case assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and
sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a
comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule
this state's legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate
means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.
A jury found a ma
Your answer:
Gregg v. Georgia, 1976
Roper v. Simmons, 2005
Penry v. Johnson, 2001
text
Answers Criminal Rights:
1. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
2. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985
3. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
4. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
5. Gregg v. Georgia, 1976