The correct answer is the Second Amendment. Although you may not be familiar with the case, McDonald v. Chicago (you likely should be), the remainder of the question should have tipped you off to the answer. The full text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There was, prior to McDonald (and its companion case, Heller v. DC) some confusion regarding the status of Second Amendment rights; everyone agreed that they existed (clearly) but disagreed on exactly how. In more concrete terms, while everyone recognized a general right to “keep and bear arms” there was substantial disagreement regarding whether that right was an individual right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to, say, the right to keep and bear arms in a militia). McDonald v. Chicago and Heller v. DC answered that question in the affirmative.

The correct answer is the Third Amendment. Interestingly, the Third Amendment is hands-down the least controversial Amendment, well, ever. It has been the subject of absolutely no Supreme Court litigation! The newly-minted US included the 3rd Amendment in large part because of the excesses of the British government in the decade or so immediately preceding the Revolution.

This should have been a relatively easy question. The correct answer is the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth amendment, among other things, proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures. The “un” is emphasized because the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit “reasonable” searches and seizures. If, for example, a law-abiding citizen got pulled over for, say, speeding, and the officer requested a search of the car, that citizen could exercise his rights under the Fourth Amendment, and decline the search (provided the officer didn’t have probable cause). Contrary to popular lore, declining a search based off of your Fourth Amendment rights does not then create probable cause allowing the police officer to obtain a warrant and search without permission. That would be an absurd result.

The Fifth Amendment provides quite a lot of artillery in one little amendment. For the purposes of this question, the answer reading “all of these answers are correct” is the correct answer. The Fifth Amendment is a little bizarre in the sense that it mixes things that are totally unrelated. The prohibition against an uncompensated “taking,” for example, has nothing to do with the right to a grand jury indictment for the criminally accused. A right to a grand jury indictment is only tangentially related to the prohibition against “double jeopardy” (which means the government cannot seek to “overturn” an acquittal by indicting/prosecuting the same defendant on the same facts). Interestingly, all of these are included within the realm of the Fifth Amendment!

“Pleading” or “taking” the Fifth refers to a legal refusal to answer a question (generally administered under oath) due to the fact that it may incriminate the one testifying or speaking. Take, for example, an alleged murderer. Without the Fifth Amendment, the prosecution could put the alleged murderer on the stand (that is, call him as a witness) and then simply ask him “did you murder the victim, Ms. Doe, on February 14, 1993 at 4pm in the afternoon at the neighborhood Kentucky Fried Cabbage?” The alleged murderer is now confronted with a very difficult choice (assume that he did in fact kill Ms. Doe): he can either (1) perjure himself; or (2) confess in open court. Neither option is terribly attractive. Thus, the Fifth Amendment prevents defendants from having to choose between perjuring themselves and confessing.

The right to “indigent” counsel is found in the Sixth Amendment (although not in those terms). “Indigent” counsel refers to the provision of a lawyer (generally a “Public Defender”) to a client who could otherwise ill afford legal representation. The right to indigent counsel was first expressed in Giddeon v. Wainright under the Earl Warren court.

This is an incredibly tricky question (sorry). None of the answers are correct. “The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures” is nowhere in the Sixth Amendment—it’s found in the Fourth Amendment. The “right to a jury made solely of your closest friends and relatives” is nowhere in the Constitution period. You have the right to a jury “of your peers” (which, essentially, just means a jury of fellow citizens) you do not have the right to a jury of your closest friends and relatives. Clearly that would give you a massive boost at the expense of the prosecution. Moreover, any “close friends” or “relatives” would almost certainly be weeded out and dismissed during voir dire (jury selection, essentially).Finally, you have the right to a "speedy" public trial--but that's not what the question says! Read carefully.

The “confrontation clause” is found in the Sixth Amendment. It recognizes the right for the criminally accused to be present at trial (that one is fairly obvious) and to cross-examine the prosecution’s witness(es) (this last “right” is a little more nebulous). At a broad level, obviously the defense has a right to cross-examine actual human witnesses—that’s one of the major purposes of a trial. Things get a little muddy, however, when the prosecution attempts to introduce, say, a document that contains hearsay evidence (that is, a statement made out of court) from a witness that is no longer available or maybe even dead. How can the defense possibly cross-examine a witness who’s not there?

This was a very tricky question. None of the answers are correct—as always, make sure you’re thoroughly reading the question! There are two important aspect of this question: (1) it highlights “civil,” as opposed to “criminal,” and (2) it highlights “state,” as opposed to “federal.” These two things are extremely important to this question.

“The Seventh Amendment” would have been correct IF it was a civil case in federal court—that’s what the Seventh Amendment protects. But that’s NOT what the question asked—it says a civil case in a state court! Remember: The Bill of Rights, as originally written and enacted applied ONLY to the federal government; not the states. The Supreme Court has gradually, over about a century and a half started “incorporating” various provisions to apply against the states as well. The Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated against the states.

This should have been a relatively simple question. The correct answer is the 8th Amendment. Among other things, the Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive fines or bail.” It would depend on the circumstances, of course, but a 1 million dollar contempt fine would likely be incredibly excessive.