Supreme Court Decisions Quiz

In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search is:

• Always admissible in court

• Admissible if it is relevant to the case

• Inadmissible in a criminal trial

• Admissible if it was obtained in good faith

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established that a person charged with a crime is entitled to:

• A fair trial

• A court-appointed attorney

• A speedy trial

• A trial by jury

According to Brady v. Maryland (1963), the prosecution is responsible for sharing all relevant evidence with the defense, including:

• Witness statements

• Confessions

• Forensic evidence

• All of the above

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that police must inform a suspect of their constitutional rights, including the right to:

• An attorney

• Remain silent

• Both A and B

• Neither A nor B

Katz v. United States (1967) determined that the 4th Amendment right to privacy protects individuals from:

• Physical intrusions only

• Electronic intrusions only

• Both physical and electronic intrusions

• Neither physical nor electronic intrusions

Terry v. Ohio (1968) allows police officers to search a suspect's outer clothing if they have:

• Probable cause

• Reasonable suspicion

• Clear and convincing evidence

• Beyond a reasonable doubt

United States v. Leon (1984) established a 'good faith' exception to the rule that evidence obtained through an invalid search warrant is inadmissible. This exception applies when:

• The police have a valid search warrant

• The police believe they are executing a legal search

• The evidence is crucial to the case

• The suspect has a prior criminal record

According to Tennessee v. Garner (1985), police can use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect if:

• The suspect is armed

• The suspect is a known criminal

• The suspect poses a significant threat of violence

• The suspect is resisting arrest

Crawford v. Washington (2004) established that defendants have the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine their testimony, including testimony gathered by:

• Police

• Prosecutors

• Defense attorneys

• Eyewitnesses

Maryland v. King (2013) determined that collecting DNA from people arrested for serious crimes is considered reasonable under the 4th Amendment, as long as the DNA sample is:

• Analyzed immediately

• Added to the database before arraignment

• Destroyed if arraignment does not occur

• Used as evidence in court