ASIS International (ASIS) Professional Certified Investigator Practice Exam

Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment

Study for the ASIS International Professional Certified Investigator Exam. Practice with flashcards and multiple-choice questions, complete with explanations and tips. Prepare effectively and boost your confidence for exam day!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


What is the legal significance of Tehan v US?

  1. It emphasized the importance of the jury system

  2. It required the disclosure of evidence to the defense

  3. It established that plea deals must be voluntary

  4. It confirmed adherence to the adversarial system of justice

The correct answer is: It confirmed adherence to the adversarial system of justice

The legal significance of Tehan v. US lies in its confirmation of the adversarial system of justice, which is a fundamental principle in the American legal system. This case reinforced the idea that both parties in a legal proceeding must have the opportunity to present their case fully and challenge the evidence and arguments presented by the opposing party. The adversarial system relies on the belief that truth and justice are best served when each side competes to provide the most compelling narrative and evidence before an impartial judge or jury. In the context of this case, the ruling underscored the importance of maintaining this balance so that the rights of individuals, particularly defendants, are protected throughout legal proceedings. In this system, legal representation and the ability to confront evidence are crucial, helping ensure fairness and due process. Other options, while addressing important aspects of legal proceedings such as the jury system, evidence disclosure, and plea deals, do not encapsulate the core contribution of the Tehan v. US decision to the foundation of the adversarial system itself. Therefore, the correct interpretation centers on the reaffirmation of the principles that govern how justice is pursued in the court system.