A Unique Quiz On Crimes Chapter 9
There have been criminals in this world that have shocked the world all over and they get some convictions that they get at times match the crime. How much do you know when it comes to criminology? Take this unique quiz below on crimes covering chapter nine and find out.
Questions and Answers
- 1.
The right of pretrial discovery was originally granted to the defendant upon the theory that the right would assist the defendant:
- A.
In obtaining the names of key witnesses.
- B.
In suppressing unfavorable testimony.
- C.
In establishing an alibi.
- D.
In the preparation of his or her case and would aid in obtaining a fair trial.
Correct Answer
D. In the preparation of his or her case and would aid in obtaining a fair trial.Explanation
The right of pretrial discovery was originally granted to the defendant to aid in the preparation of their case and to ensure a fair trial. This right allows the defendant to gather information and evidence that may be crucial to their defense. By having access to relevant documents, witness statements, and other evidence, the defendant can better understand the prosecution's case and build a stronger defense. Additionally, pretrial discovery helps prevent surprises during the trial, allowing both parties to present their cases more effectively and ensuring a fair and balanced trial process.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
In states where pretrial discovery is not recognized, generally the defendant must rely on:
- A.
Arraignment
- B.
Preliminary hearing
- C.
Trial judge's discretion
- D.
None of the above
Correct Answer
B. Preliminary hearingExplanation
In states where pretrial discovery is not recognized, the defendant must rely on a preliminary hearing. This is because a preliminary hearing allows the defendant to hear the evidence against them and challenge the prosecution's case before the trial begins. It is an opportunity for the defendant to present their side of the story and potentially have the charges dismissed or reduced. Without pretrial discovery, the preliminary hearing becomes crucial in ensuring a fair trial for the defendant.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
The right of pretrial discovery may come into being by:
- A.
Legislative action
- B.
Appellate court decisions
- C.
Appellate court decision and/or legislative actions
- D.
Executive flat
Correct Answer
C. Appellate court decision and/or legislative actionsExplanation
The right of pretrial discovery may come into being through appellate court decisions and/or legislative actions. This means that the right can be established either through decisions made by higher courts or through laws passed by the legislative branch. Both avenues can contribute to the creation and recognition of the right to pretrial discovery.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
The chief argument against granting the prosecution any right of discovery is that the right would be compelling the defendant to:
- A.
Be a witness against himself or herself
- B.
Reveal the weakness in the defense case
- C.
Subject the witnesses to harassment
- D.
Reveal an alibi defense
Correct Answer
A. Be a witness against himself or herselfExplanation
Granting the prosecution any right of discovery would compel the defendant to be a witness against himself or herself. This violates the principle of self-incrimination, which is protected under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The right to remain silent and not testify against oneself is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Allowing the prosecution to have access to evidence that could potentially incriminate the defendant would undermine this constitutional protection.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
The police searched Jerry’s home without a warrant and found drugs under his bed. To contest the legality of the search, his counsel may file a motion to:
- A.
Censure the police officers
- B.
Admit the evidence
- C.
Suppress the evidence
- D.
Determine the legality of the search
Correct Answer
C. Suppress the evidenceExplanation
Jerry's counsel may file a motion to suppress the evidence because the police searched his home without a warrant. This means that the search was conducted illegally, and any evidence found during the search should not be admissible in court. By filing a motion to suppress the evidence, Jerry's counsel is seeking to have the evidence excluded from the trial, as it was obtained in violation of Jerry's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
Whether or not a continuance is granted is based on:
- A.
Needs of the prosecution
- B.
Needs of the defense
- C.
Needs of the jury
- D.
The discretion of the trial judge
Correct Answer
D. The discretion of the trial judgeExplanation
The granting of a continuance in a trial is ultimately decided by the trial judge's discretion. This means that the judge has the authority to determine whether or not to allow a continuance based on various factors and considerations. The judge will take into account the needs of the prosecution, defense, and jury, but ultimately it is up to their judgment to decide if a continuance is necessary or appropriate in the given circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
When the prosecutor enters a nolle prosequi, he or she takes the following action:
- A.
Demands a swift trial
- B.
Requests that the trial court dismiss the action
- C.
Requests that the trial court censure the defense for misconduct
- D.
Request that the trial court immediately issue a ruling on the motion
Correct Answer
B. Requests that the trial court dismiss the actionExplanation
When the prosecutor enters a nolle prosequi, it means that they are requesting the trial court to dismiss the action. This term is used when the prosecutor decides to drop the charges against the defendant. By entering a nolle prosequi, the prosecutor is essentially stating that they no longer wish to pursue the case and are asking the court to dismiss it. This can happen for various reasons, such as lack of evidence, new information, or a change in circumstances.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Most state laws generally provide that a continuance may not be granted except:
- A.
On a request of the defendant
- B.
On a request of the prosecutor
- C.
As needed to effectuate the ends of justice
- D.
On request of the trial judge
Correct Answer
C. As needed to effectuate the ends of justiceExplanation
A continuance is a postponement or delay in a legal proceeding. State laws typically restrict the granting of continuances to certain circumstances. In this case, the correct answer is "As needed to effectuate the ends of justice." This means that a continuance may only be granted if it is necessary to ensure that justice is served. It implies that the court can delay the proceedings if it is in the interest of fairness, equity, or the proper administration of justice. The other options, such as requests from the defendant, prosecutor, or trial judge, are not sufficient on their own to grant a continuance under most state laws.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
Two defendants are being tried together for the robbery of a bank. The defendants do not want to be tried at the same time in the same court. Their counsel should submit a motion for:
- A.
Joinder of offenses
- B.
Joinder of defendants
- C.
Severance of offenses
- D.
Severance
Correct Answer
D. SeveranceExplanation
The defendants in this case do not want to be tried together in the same court. The term "severance" refers to the separation or division of the defendants. By submitting a motion for severance, their counsel is requesting that the defendants be tried separately. This would allow each defendant to have their own individual trial, which may be beneficial for their defense strategies.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
If the competency of the defendant is in question:
- A.
The proceeding is stopped until the issue of competency is determined.
- B.
A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered.
- C.
The defendant must be placed in a mental hospital.
- D.
The trial proceeds with the defense having the assistance of a psychiatrist.
Correct Answer
A. The proceeding is stopped until the issue of competency is determined.Explanation
When the competency of the defendant is in question, the proceeding is halted until the issue of competency is determined. This means that the trial cannot continue until it is established whether the defendant is mentally capable of understanding the charges against them and participating in their own defense. This is an important step to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial and that their rights are protected. Once the issue of competency is resolved, the trial can proceed with the appropriate legal measures in place, such as entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and providing the defendant with the assistance of a psychiatrist.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Few motions are filed in criminal cases
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The statement "Few motions are filed in criminal cases" is incorrect. In criminal cases, various motions can be filed by both the prosecution and the defense. These motions can include requests for evidence, requests to suppress evidence, requests for a change of venue, or requests to dismiss charges, among others. Therefore, the correct answer is False.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
The right of discovery permits the opposite side to inspect the evidence held by the opposition.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The right of discovery allows the opposing party in a legal case to examine the evidence held by the other side. This is an important aspect of the legal process as it ensures transparency and fairness. By allowing both parties to have access to the evidence, it helps to prevent any surprises or hidden information that could impact the outcome of the case. Therefore, the statement is true.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
The right of discovery existed at common law.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The right of discovery did not exist at common law. Common law refers to the body of law derived from judicial decisions and custom, rather than from statutes. The right of discovery is a legal concept that grants parties in a lawsuit the ability to obtain information and evidence from the opposing party. This right was not recognized in common law and is instead a product of modern procedural rules and statutes. Therefore, the correct answer is false.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The right of discovery was created primarily for the benefit of the prosecution.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The right of discovery was not created primarily for the benefit of the prosecution. Instead, it was established to ensure fairness and justice in criminal proceedings by allowing both the prosecution and the defense to access and exchange relevant information and evidence before trial. This allows both sides to prepare their cases and prevents any surprises during the trial, promoting a more balanced and transparent legal process.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
The right of discovery comes into being by legislative action only.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The statement is false because the right of discovery can also be established through judicial action or common law principles, not just legislative action. Legislative action is one way to create the right of discovery, but it is not the only way. Judicial decisions and legal precedents can also establish and shape the right of discovery. Therefore, the statement that the right of discovery comes into being by legislative action only is incorrect.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
The U.S. Supreme Court has sanctioned the right of discovery by the prosecution.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed sanctioned the right of discovery by the prosecution. This means that prosecutors have the legal authority to obtain information and evidence from the defense in criminal cases. This allows for a fair and transparent legal process, as both sides have access to relevant information and can adequately prepare their cases.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
The most frequently used reason to request the suppression of evidence is that the evidence was unlawfully seized.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
A. TrueExplanation
The statement is true because if evidence is unlawfully seized, it violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. If evidence is obtained through an illegal search or seizure, it is considered inadmissible in court, and therefore, requesting the suppression of such evidence is a common reason to challenge its use in legal proceedings.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
If the accused commits a series of crimes of the same nature, those crimes may not be tried together.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
If the accused commits a series of crimes of the same nature, those crimes may be tried together. This is because when multiple crimes are of the same nature, it is more efficient and practical to consolidate the trials into one, rather than conducting separate trials for each crime. This helps in saving time, resources, and avoids duplication of evidence and witnesses. Additionally, trying the crimes together allows the court to have a comprehensive understanding of the accused's criminal behavior and patterns, which can aid in delivering a fair and just verdict.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
If two or more persons jointly commit a crime, they must be tried together.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
When two or more persons jointly commit a crime, they may or may not be tried together. The decision to try them together or separately depends on various factors, such as the nature of the crime, the evidence available, and the legal procedures in place. It is possible for the authorities to decide to try each person separately if it is deemed necessary or appropriate in the given circumstances. Therefore, the statement that they must be tried together is not always true.Rate this question:
-
- 20.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not sanctioned plea bargaining.
- A.
True
- B.
False
Correct Answer
B. FalseExplanation
The statement is false because the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed sanctioned plea bargaining. In the case of Brady v. United States in 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that plea bargaining is a constitutional practice. They recognized that it helps to manage caseloads and allows for more efficient administration of justice. Since then, plea bargaining has become a common practice in the U.S. criminal justice system, with the Supreme Court upholding its legality and importance in several subsequent cases.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 22, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 24, 2012Quiz Created by
IdealistHealer
- Activism Quizzes
- Adult Quizzes
- Age Quizzes
- Boy Quizzes
- Bullying Quizzes
- Clan Quizzes
- Communism Quizzes
- Community Quizzes
- Conflict Quizzes
- Cultural Assimilation Quizzes
- Culture Quizzes
- Death Quizzes
- Destiny Quizzes
- Dictator Quizzes
- Disability Quizzes
- Environment Quizzes
- Ethnicity Quizzes
- Etiquette Quizzes
- Event Quizzes
- Feminism Quizzes
- Festival Quizzes
- Fraternity Quizzes
- Future Quizzes
- Gay Quizzes
- Gender Quizzes
- Generation Quizzes
- Girl Quizzes
- Goth Quizzes
- Homelessness Quizzes
- Human Rights Quizzes
- Humanity Quizzes
- Kid Quizzes
- Labor Quizzes
- Law Quizzes
- Lesbian Quizzes
- LGBT Quizzes
- Lifestyle Quizzes
- Man Quizzes
- Mature Quizzes
- Military Quizzes
- Morality Quizzes
- Movement Quizzes
- Museum Quizzes
- Mythology Quizzes
- Paranormal Quizzes
- Peer Pressure Quizzes
- People Quizzes
- Politics Quizzes
- POSH Quizzes
- Racism Quizzes
- Religion Quizzes
- Romanticism Quizzes
- Security Quizzes
- Social Quizzes
- Social Science Quizzes
- Spirituality Quizzes
- Superstition Quizzes
- Tribe Quizzes
- Wedding Quizzes
- Women Quizzes
- Work Quizzes
- Youth Quizzes