multiple choice

22.As a result of the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966):

-people who are arrested must be informed of their constitutional rights.

-the government will provide a lawyer to a defendant who cannot afford one.

-the police are required to get a warrant if they want to search someone's home.

-the police may no longer interrogate people who are arrested.

-evidence seized without a warrant may not be admitted at trial.

23.Which of the following statements correctly describe(s) the role of the appellate court?

-The appellate court may re-examine the evidence in order to determine if the jury reached the right verdict during trial.

-All four statements correctly describe the role of the appellate court.

-The appellate court may consider whether the trial judge gave the jury the correct law to apply to the facts.

-The appellate court may determine if a witness who testified at trial was telling the truth.

-The appellate court may hear new evidence in the case.

24.During heavy fog, a fifty-car pile-up occurred on Interstate 5, injuring many people. A California legislator introduced a bill to allocate tax dollars to compensate injured victims for property losses and medical expenses. Which of the following arguments would the legislator be most likely to make in favor of a bill establishing such a fund?

-The fund will be more efficient because additional resources will not have to be spent to determine which, if any, of the drivers were at fault.

-Establishing the fund will deter motorists from driving through fog in the future.

-The bill is meant to hold the driver at the head of the pile-up morally accountable.

-The fund will better allocate blame among numerous wrong-doers.

-The fund will prevent frivolous lawsuits.