CRIMINOLOGY (FINAL COURT CASES)
About this set
Created by:
lhoffman7 on October 12, 2011
Description:
Criminal Justice 101 Class: This set is complied of cases that will be found on the Final Exam IN ADDITION TO the cases that were on the Mid-Term. I suggest familiarizing yourself with each case using the "Flashcard" study method, then quiz yourself using the "Scatter" and " (see more)
Log in to favorite or report as inappropriate.
Order by
35 terms
Terms | Definitions |
|---|---|
 Arizona v Fulminante | The erroneous admission of a coerced confession at trial does not constitute grounds for an automatic mistrial; in some cases, and involuntary confession can be taken and legally admitted as evidence; the totality of the circumstances is to be considered (see also Illinois v Gates) |
| Atkins v Virginia | Capital punishment is not a suitable penalty for mentally retarded defendants; such a penalty is excessive, when involving mentally retarded defendants |
| California v Greenwood | Garbage containers outside of the curtilage of the home are considered abandoned and may be searched without a warrant and without cause |
| California v Hodari D. | Evidence discarded by an individual fleeing from the police is admissable in court, even if the police had no advance cause to focus attention upon the person who discarded the material |
| Colorado v Bertine | A vehicle that has been impounded by police officials can be searched in its entirety; all items found in the vehicle, including closed and locked items, may also be searched |
| Edwards v Arizona | Once suspects in police custody invoke their right to counsel, law enforcement officials must cease their questioning with regard to the current case and any other case, until counsel is present, even if the suspect later agrees to talk without an attorney present |
| Escobedo v Illinois | The right to counsel begins at the point of focus |
| Florida v Royer | 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 (passengers or non-passengers) on airport grounds |
| Furman v Georgia | The death penalty is not being administered equitably |
| Gagnon v Scarpelli | Probationers have the right to an attorney at probation revocation hearings |
| Gideon v Wainwright | Indigents have the right to a legal counsel during the trial stage; the state will apoint an attorney to the case if the individual cannot afford one |
| Gregg v Georgia | Allows the dealth penalty to be administered as long as the capital sentence is not mandatory, aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered, and a proceeding (i.e., different judges determine guilt and sentence) |
| Herrera v Collins | Newly discovered evidence demonstrating the actual innocence of the person sentenced to death does not provide automatic habeas corpus relief |
| In Re Gault | 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 confront/cross examine the accuser, the right to present evidence on your own behalf, the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing, the right against self-incrimination, the right to a formal ruling based on information presented in court, and the right to an appeal |
| In Re Winship | The standard proof in juvenile court adjudication is beyond a reasonable doubt |
| McCleskey v Kemp | Specific intent to discriminate against an individual must be demonstrated before that individual's death sentence can be set aside; intent over impact |
| McCleskey v Zant | Defendants are entitled to a limited number of habeas appeals in capital cases |
| McKeiver v Pennsylvania | There is no right to a jury for juveniles being adjudicated in juvenile court |
| McNeil v Wisconsin | Requests for counsel during the police interrogation stage are offense specific (see also Minnick v Mississippi) |
| New Jersey v TLO | 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 |
| Michigan v Harvey | An illegally obtained confession can be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial |
| Miranda v Arizona | 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 |
| Morrissey v Brewer | Parolees have no right to legal counsel at parole revocation hearings |
| Reves v Ernst and Young | Liability under RICO requires some primary participation in the operation and/or management of the criminal enterprise |
| Roper v Simmons | The death penalty cannot be administered to those who were 17 years of age or under when the offense was committed |
| Sherman v U.S. | If the criminal conduct is the product of government agency 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 would be free from any criminal liability for the act in question |
| Terry v Ohio | (Stop and Frisk Search): A stop and frisk search may be conducted when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is now or is about to engage in criminal behavior |
| U.S. v 92 Buena Vista Avenue | Assets forfeited under RICO are limited to those that were gained from and/or used in the criminal enterprise |
| U.S. v Dunn | No specific cause nor a search warrant is needed to search either open fields or non-habitable buildings (see also Oliver v U.S.) |
| U.S. v Hensley | A stop and frisk search may be performed when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the offender has violated the law, past tense |
| U.S. v James Daniel Good | Civil forfeitures under RICO are not automatic; they require a separate civil proceeding |
| U.S. v Ross | If probable cause of another offense arises during a routine vehicle/traffic stop, every occupant and every part of the vehicle and its contents, indluding closed and locked containers in the vehicle, may be searched; search justification arises only if there is probable cause to believe that there may be some legal violation that warrant further investigation, other than the traffic offense (see also California v Acevedo) |
| U.S. v Sokolow | 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 |
| Wilson v Seiter | 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 unconstitutional conditions |
| Wolff v McDonnell | 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 |
First Time Here?
Welcome to Quizlet, a fun, free place to study. Try these flashcards, find others to study, or make your own.
Set Champions
Scatter Champion
17.0 secs by meganbethbrown
Space Race Champion
5,260 points by lhoffman7
Speller Champion
85.4% correct by jholliday93