100+ Free CrTAS Practice Questions

Pass your NBTA Criminal Trial Advocacy Specialist exam on the first try — instant access, no signup required.

✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately

~55-65% Pass Rate

100+ Questions

100% Free

1 / 10

Question 1

Score: 0/0

The Fourth Amendment prohibits:

Unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause and particularity

All searches and seizures

Only physical searches

Only searches by federal agents

to track

2026 Statistics

Key Facts: CrTAS Exam

100

Exam Questions

NBTA

Pass/Fail

Board Review

NBTA

5 hours

Exam Duration

NBTA

$2,000-$3,500

Exam Fee

NBTA (app + exam)

5+ years

Experience Required

NBTA eligibility

5 years

Certification Validity

Recertification required

The NBTA Criminal Trial Advocacy Specialist exam is a 5-hour written examination with approximately 100 essay and multiple-choice questions. Pass/fail determined by the NBTA Board. Candidates must have a JD, active bar membership, substantial criminal trial practice (prosecution or defense, typically 5+ years with 25%+ in criminal trials), documented jury trial experience as lead counsel, CLE, and peer references. Certification is valid 5 years; recertification via peer review and CLE. Fee: $2,000-$3,500.

Sample CrTAS Practice Questions

Try these sample questions to test your CrTAS exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.

1The Fourth Amendment prohibits:

A.Unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause and particularity

B.All searches and seizures

C.Only physical searches

D.Only searches by federal agents

Explanation: The Fourth Amendment: 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Warrant requirement: probable cause, particularity, supported by oath/affirmation. Incorporated against states via 14th Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio). Key cases: Katz v. US (reasonable expectation of privacy test); Terry v. Ohio (stop and frisk); Chimel v. California (search incident to arrest); Riley v. California (cell phones); Carpenter v. US (CSLI).

2Katz v. United States (1967) established the test for a Fourth Amendment 'search':

A.Reasonable expectation of privacy (subjective expectation, objectively reasonable)

B.Any physical intrusion

C.Government observation

D.Government listening

Explanation: Katz abandoned the 'constitutionally protected area' trespass test. The reasonable expectation test (from Justice Harlan's concurrence): (1) person exhibited actual subjective expectation of privacy; (2) expectation is one society recognizes as reasonable. Katz involved phone booth wiretapping. Jones v. US (2012) revived a trespass theory alongside Katz — GPS on car. Carpenter (2018) — CSLI requires warrant despite third-party doctrine.

3Terry v. Ohio (1968) authorizes:

A.Brief investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion and limited pat-down (frisk) for weapons if officer reasonably believes armed and dangerous

B.Full search

C.Arrest

D.Only consent searches

Explanation: Terry stops require reasonable suspicion — less than probable cause. Articulable facts lead officer to suspect criminal activity afoot. Terry frisk (pat-down) requires reasonable belief suspect is armed and dangerous. Limited to outer clothing for weapons, not general search. Plain feel exception — if during lawful Terry frisk officer immediately recognizes contraband without manipulation, may seize (Minnesota v. Dickerson). Duration must be limited. Illinois v. Wardlow — flight in high-crime area can create reasonable suspicion.

4The exclusionary rule:

A.Bars use of evidence obtained in violation of 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments in criminal prosecutions, subject to exceptions (good faith, inevitable discovery, attenuation)

B.Applies to all constitutional violations

C.Always absolute

D.No exceptions

Explanation: Exclusionary rule (Weeks v. US 1914 federal; Mapp v. Ohio 1961 states) excludes illegally obtained evidence. Exceptions: (1) good faith — US v. Leon (1984) warrant invalid but officers relied reasonably; (2) inevitable discovery — Nix v. Williams (1984); (3) independent source — Segura v. US; (4) attenuation — Brown v. Illinois (sufficient break from illegality); (5) impeachment use — Walder v. US; (6) private searches; (7) standing requirement. Fruit of poisonous tree — Wong Sun v. US — exclusion of derivative evidence.

5Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requires police to warn suspects in custodial interrogation:

A.Right to remain silent; statements may be used against them; right to counsel (including appointed if indigent)

B.Only of right to silence

C.Only of right to counsel

D.No warning required

Explanation: Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation (both custody AND interrogation required). Warnings: right to remain silent; anything said can/will be used against them; right to consult with attorney before questioning; right to have attorney present during questioning; right to appointed counsel if indigent. Custody — objective test, reasonable person would feel not free to leave. Interrogation — questioning or functional equivalent (Rhode Island v. Innis). Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary.

6The 'public safety' exception to Miranda (New York v. Quarles, 1984):

A.Permits police to ask questions necessary to protect immediate public safety before administering Miranda

B.No exceptions to Miranda

C.Only for terrorism

D.Only with prosecutor approval

Explanation: Quarles created the public safety exception — officers may ask questions reasonably prompted by concern for public safety without first giving Miranda warnings. Facts: officer asked about gun location before Miranda. Courts apply expansively — bomb, weapon, missing person. Statements admissible and fruits admissible. Limits: exception must be about objectively reasonable safety concern, not general investigation. Different from 'rescue doctrine.'

7Edwards v. Arizona (1981) established:

A.Once suspect invokes right to counsel, all interrogation must cease until counsel present OR suspect initiates communication

B.Can continue after 24 hours

C.No effect on interrogation

D.Applies only to prosecutors

Explanation: Edwards rule: once suspect requests counsel, police cannot resume interrogation until counsel present unless suspect initiates. Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) — rule applies even after suspect consults counsel. Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) — 14-day break in custody dissolves Edwards protection. Davis v. US (1994) — invocation must be unambiguous/unequivocal (maybe I should talk to a lawyer insufficient). Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) — invocation of silence must also be unambiguous.

8Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) held:

A.Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in state felony cases

B.Only for federal cases

C.Only capital cases

D.Only for juveniles

Explanation: Gideon established state obligation to appoint counsel for indigent defendants in felony cases — overruling Betts v. Brady. Extended by Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) to any case resulting in actual imprisonment (including misdemeanors). Rothgery v. Gillespie County (2008) — right attaches at initial hearing/arraignment. Important for plea representation — critical stage. Alabama v. Shelton — suspended sentences also trigger. Powell v. Alabama (1932) — capital cases require counsel.

9Strickland v. Washington (1984) established the test for ineffective assistance of counsel:

A.Two-prong: (1) deficient performance below objective reasonableness; (2) prejudice — reasonable probability different outcome

B.Any mistake

C.Strict liability

D.Only egregious errors

Explanation: Strickland test: (1) Performance prong — counsel's performance fell below objective standard of reasonableness; strategic decisions virtually unchallengeable; presumption of adequacy; (2) Prejudice prong — reasonable probability (less than preponderance but sufficient to undermine confidence) that but for deficient performance, outcome would differ. Both prongs required. Nix v. Whiteside — counsel not ineffective for refusing to aid perjury. Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) — failure to advise on immigration consequences can be deficient.

10Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) held:

A.Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise non-citizen clients about deportation risks of guilty pleas

B.No duty to advise on collateral consequences

C.Only for violent crimes

D.Only for federal cases

Explanation: Padilla extended Strickland to immigration advice — failure to advise about deportation consequences can be deficient performance. When consequences are 'truly clear' from statute, counsel must advise correctly. When unclear, duty at minimum to advise that immigration consequences may result and recommend consultation with immigration attorney. Retroactivity: Chaidez v. US (2013) — not retroactively applicable. State variations on breadth of Padilla duty. Lee v. US (2017) — prejudice analysis for non-citizens facing deportation.

About the CrTAS Exam

The NBTA Criminal Trial Advocacy Specialist credential is an ABA-accredited board certification for attorneys with substantial criminal trial experience (prosecution or defense). The 5-hour written examination tests mastery of the constitutional rights implicated in criminal cases (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th Amendments), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, common defenses, plea bargaining, sentencing (including Guidelines and mandatory minimums), capital cases, post-conviction review, and criminal trial ethics.

Questions

100 scored questions

Time Limit

5 hours (written exam)

Passing Score

Pass per board review

Exam Fee

$2,000-$3,500 (National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA))

CrTAS Exam Content Outline

25%

4th, 5th & 6th Amendments

Search and seizure, warrants, exclusionary rule, Terry stops, Miranda, right to counsel (Gideon, Strickland), confrontation (Crawford), speedy trial, grand jury

15%

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 16 discovery, Brady/Giglio, Jencks Act, Rule 404(b) prior bad acts, Rule 609, trial procedure, motion practice

15%

Common Defenses

Insanity (M'Naghten, ALI, Durham), diminished capacity, self-defense, duress, necessity, entrapment (subjective vs. objective), mistake of fact, intoxication

15%

Plea Bargaining & Guilty Pleas

Santobello, Alford, nolo, Padilla immigration, Lafler/Frye effective assistance in plea bargaining, Rule 11 colloquy, plea agreements

15%

Sentencing & Post-Conviction

Federal Sentencing Guidelines (advisory post-Booker), mandatory minimums, Apprendi/Alleyne jury findings, 3553(a) factors, safety valve, direct appeal, 28 USC 2255, AEDPA

15%

Capital Cases, Juvenile & Ethics

Death penalty (Furman, Gregg, Atkins, Roper), juvenile transfer, ABA Model Rule 3.8 prosecutor duties, 3.3 candor, 3.4 fairness

How to Pass the CrTAS Exam

What You Need to Know

Passing score: Pass per board review
Exam length: 100 questions
Time limit: 5 hours (written exam)
Exam fee: $2,000-$3,500

Keys to Passing

Complete 500+ practice questions
Score 80%+ consistently before scheduling
Focus on highest-weighted sections
Use our AI tutor for tough concepts

CrTAS Study Tips from Top Performers

1Master the Supreme Court search and seizure cases: Katz, Terry, Chimel, Riley (cell phone), Carpenter (CSLI), Bruen aftermath

2Know Miranda's requirements, exceptions (public safety — Quarles), and invocation rules (Edwards, Davis unambiguous)

3Understand Strickland two-prong test: deficient performance AND prejudice — and its extensions in plea bargaining (Lafler, Frye)

4Study Brady materiality standard, Giglio impeachment evidence, and Kyles aggregation

5Know Apprendi/Alleyne: any fact increasing statutory maximum or mandatory minimum must be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt

6Review Booker/Gall advisory Guidelines framework, 3553(a) factors, and safety valve 18 USC 3553(f)

7Study Padilla immigration consequences, Lafler/Frye plea bargaining ineffective assistance

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the NBTA Criminal Trial Advocacy Specialist exam?

The Criminal Trial Advocacy Specialist is a board certification administered by the National Board of Trial Advocacy, an ABA-accredited body. The 5-hour written exam tests mastery of constitutional criminal procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, common defenses, plea bargaining, sentencing, post-conviction, and criminal trial ethics.

What are the eligibility requirements?

Candidates must hold a JD, be active bar members in good standing, demonstrate substantial criminal trial experience (prosecution or defense, typically 25%+ of practice for 5+ years), document a minimum number of jury trials as lead counsel, complete CLE in criminal trial advocacy, and provide peer references from judges and attorneys.

How many questions are on the exam?

The exam contains approximately 100 essay and multiple-choice questions over a 5-hour session. Pass/fail determined by NBTA Board based on total performance.

How much does the certification cost?

Application and examination fees typically total $2,000-$3,500. Recertification fees apply every 5 years.

How long is the certification valid?

NBTA certification is valid for 5 years. Recertification requires continued substantial criminal trial practice, CLE, updated peer references, and board review.

How should I prepare?

Plan for 80-150 hours of study over 3-4 months. Review 4th/5th/6th/8th/14th Amendment case law, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, leading Supreme Court decisions (Strickland, Brady, Miranda, Crawford, Apprendi), Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and complete 100+ practice questions.