Penology Final EXAM 2026-2027 LATEST VERSION
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED CORRECT ANSWERS JUST
RELEASED
What kind of "prison" transfer was not allowed by the Court? - answer>>>-prison to
mental hospital
-Vitak v. Jones (1980)
The Miranda requirement & prison disciplinary proceedings - answer>>>no, Miranda
requirement does not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings; notification of rights
If a prisoner was disciplined on the basis of a letter he sent to another prisoner urging
that prisoner not to plead guilty to a charge of assaulting a police officer. Will his
constitutional claim that the imposition of the disciplinary measures impinge on his 1st
Amendment right to correspond with other inmates about legal matters be upheld? Also
case - answer>>>-Shaw v. Murphy (2001)
-no the courts rejected his first claim
A prison had a policy of inspecting incoming mail for contraband. This included incoming
mail from attorneys. In this instance the inmate was present when incoming mail from
attorneys was inspected, and could insure that it wasn't read. Under these circumstances
the Court was there a Constitutional violation? Also case - answer>>>-Wolf v. McDonnell
(1974)
-at the time it was not a requirement, however now it is
-the inmate was present so no violation occurred
In which case did a prison have an across the board ban of interviews of inmates by law
students and paralegals? This included law students and paralegals working under the
direction of an attorney. - answer>>>Procunier v. Martinez (1974)
In the case discussed above, what did the Court consider as relevant factors? -
answer>>>-the prison authorities had failed to justify on security grounds an absolute
ban on law students and paralegals working for an attorney
-there is no explanation as to why if necessary, a narrower restriction would "unduly
burden" institutional security
In a pretrial situation with an indicted defendant, where the police electronically
monitored an indicted defendant's conversation with his codefendant on their common
trial strategy (the codefendant wore a "wire"), the Courts' response to the prison
officials' safety and security argument? - answer>>>while acknowledging the legitimate
, concern for the codefendant's safety, the court found a violation of the defendant's right
to counsel. this decision arguably suggest that correctional officials who, based upon
reasonable security concerns, read attorney-inmate correspondence would not
necessarily avert the 6th Amendment
answer D
In post-conviction challenge to the validity of a conviction beyond the right of first
appeal, is there a right to an appointed counsel? - answer>>>no
In a post-conviction challenge to the validity of a conviction beyond the right of first
appeal, is there a right to an appointed council for a capital case? - answer>>>yes
In Johnson v. Avery (1969), the Court acknowledged there were a number of sound
reasons for the regulation for prohibiting the activities of jailhouse "lawyers." The Court
then decide? - answer>>>-jailhouse lawyers could then threaten security prisons through
extorting payments for their service
-inmates could exercise a general disruptive power
-the burden on the courts caused by an increased number of complaints and documents
Is there a right to the assistance of jailhouse "lawyers" for inmates wishing to bring suit
challenging the conditions of their confinement, as well as their treatment by prison
officials? The case that decided this issue is? - answer>>>yes, Wolf v. McDonnell (1974)
Is there a right to the assistance of jailhouse "lawyers for inmates wishing to bring suit
challenging the conditions of their confinement, as well as their treatment by prison
officials? - answer>>>yes, Wolf v. McDonnell (1974)
Which case decided whether inmates had a right of access to an "adequate" law library,
or must otherwise be provided with "adequate" assistance from persons trained in the
law? - answer>>>Bounds v. Smith (1977)
Concerning the adequacy of prison law libraries, did Lewis v. Casey (1996) reject a
requirement that an inmate prove that he suffered an "actual injury" due to an
"inadequate" law library? - answer>>>yes
Prisoners claimed that had not received procedural due process when their mail was
censored. The Court upheld that claim. What are the guidelines? Procunier v. Martinez
(1974) - answer>>>1. notification to the inmate when a letter written is censored
2. afford the letters writer on opportunity to challenge the censorship
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED CORRECT ANSWERS JUST
RELEASED
What kind of "prison" transfer was not allowed by the Court? - answer>>>-prison to
mental hospital
-Vitak v. Jones (1980)
The Miranda requirement & prison disciplinary proceedings - answer>>>no, Miranda
requirement does not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings; notification of rights
If a prisoner was disciplined on the basis of a letter he sent to another prisoner urging
that prisoner not to plead guilty to a charge of assaulting a police officer. Will his
constitutional claim that the imposition of the disciplinary measures impinge on his 1st
Amendment right to correspond with other inmates about legal matters be upheld? Also
case - answer>>>-Shaw v. Murphy (2001)
-no the courts rejected his first claim
A prison had a policy of inspecting incoming mail for contraband. This included incoming
mail from attorneys. In this instance the inmate was present when incoming mail from
attorneys was inspected, and could insure that it wasn't read. Under these circumstances
the Court was there a Constitutional violation? Also case - answer>>>-Wolf v. McDonnell
(1974)
-at the time it was not a requirement, however now it is
-the inmate was present so no violation occurred
In which case did a prison have an across the board ban of interviews of inmates by law
students and paralegals? This included law students and paralegals working under the
direction of an attorney. - answer>>>Procunier v. Martinez (1974)
In the case discussed above, what did the Court consider as relevant factors? -
answer>>>-the prison authorities had failed to justify on security grounds an absolute
ban on law students and paralegals working for an attorney
-there is no explanation as to why if necessary, a narrower restriction would "unduly
burden" institutional security
In a pretrial situation with an indicted defendant, where the police electronically
monitored an indicted defendant's conversation with his codefendant on their common
trial strategy (the codefendant wore a "wire"), the Courts' response to the prison
officials' safety and security argument? - answer>>>while acknowledging the legitimate
, concern for the codefendant's safety, the court found a violation of the defendant's right
to counsel. this decision arguably suggest that correctional officials who, based upon
reasonable security concerns, read attorney-inmate correspondence would not
necessarily avert the 6th Amendment
answer D
In post-conviction challenge to the validity of a conviction beyond the right of first
appeal, is there a right to an appointed counsel? - answer>>>no
In a post-conviction challenge to the validity of a conviction beyond the right of first
appeal, is there a right to an appointed council for a capital case? - answer>>>yes
In Johnson v. Avery (1969), the Court acknowledged there were a number of sound
reasons for the regulation for prohibiting the activities of jailhouse "lawyers." The Court
then decide? - answer>>>-jailhouse lawyers could then threaten security prisons through
extorting payments for their service
-inmates could exercise a general disruptive power
-the burden on the courts caused by an increased number of complaints and documents
Is there a right to the assistance of jailhouse "lawyers" for inmates wishing to bring suit
challenging the conditions of their confinement, as well as their treatment by prison
officials? The case that decided this issue is? - answer>>>yes, Wolf v. McDonnell (1974)
Is there a right to the assistance of jailhouse "lawyers for inmates wishing to bring suit
challenging the conditions of their confinement, as well as their treatment by prison
officials? - answer>>>yes, Wolf v. McDonnell (1974)
Which case decided whether inmates had a right of access to an "adequate" law library,
or must otherwise be provided with "adequate" assistance from persons trained in the
law? - answer>>>Bounds v. Smith (1977)
Concerning the adequacy of prison law libraries, did Lewis v. Casey (1996) reject a
requirement that an inmate prove that he suffered an "actual injury" due to an
"inadequate" law library? - answer>>>yes
Prisoners claimed that had not received procedural due process when their mail was
censored. The Court upheld that claim. What are the guidelines? Procunier v. Martinez
(1974) - answer>>>1. notification to the inmate when a letter written is censored
2. afford the letters writer on opportunity to challenge the censorship
