In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that in the adjudicatory phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the charged offense when the juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.
Facts:
- Samuel Winship, a 12-year-old boy, was accused of entering a locker and stealing $112 from a woman's pocketbook.
- The act Winship was accused of, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of Larceny.
- A petition was filed against Winship in New York Family Court, initiating a juvenile delinquency proceeding.
- Under New York's Family Court Act § 744(b) at the time, a finding of delinquency could be based on a 'preponderance of the evidence.'
- A delinquency finding subjected Winship to the possibility of being placed in a state training school for an initial period of 18 months, with potential annual extensions until he turned 18, a total of six years.
Procedural Posture:
- A petition was filed in New York Family Court charging the 12-year-old appellant with delinquency.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, the Family Court judge found the appellant delinquent based on a 'preponderance of the evidence,' as permitted by New York state law.
- The appellant appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, which affirmed the Family Court's decision.
- The appellant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed by a 4-3 vote, expressly upholding the constitutionality of the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard for juvenile proceedings.
- The appellant sought review from the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require the application of the 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' standard during the adjudicatory phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the adjudicatory phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The reasonable-doubt standard is a fundamental component of due process in adult criminal prosecutions, as it provides concrete substance to the presumption of innocence and reduces the risk of convictions based on factual error. The Court rejected the argument that juvenile proceedings are 'civil' rather than 'criminal,' a distinction it found unpersuasive in In re Gault, because the potential for a significant loss of liberty is comparable to that in an adult felony prosecution. Applying this standard will not undermine the beneficial, rehabilitative aspects of the juvenile justice system, such as confidentiality and informality.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. The standard of proof reflects a society's assessment of the comparative social costs of erroneous factual determinations. In criminal law, the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard is used because society has determined that it is far worse to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free. This same fundamental value judgment applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings where a youth faces both a significant loss of personal liberty and the stigma of having committed a criminal act, making the higher standard of proof a requirement of fundamental fairness.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Court's decision erodes the beneficial distinctions between the juvenile and criminal court systems by imposing rigid, formal legal procedures. The original concept of the juvenile court was to provide a benevolent and flexible alternative for dealing with youthful offenders. This ruling continues a trend of transforming juvenile courts into less effective versions of criminal courts, which undermines their unique purpose and ability to function. The system needs flexibility, not the 'strait-jacketing' of further procedural requirements.
Dissenting - Justice Black
No. The Constitution does not contain any language expressly requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Due Process Clause requires the government to proceed according to the 'law of the land,' meaning the written laws passed by legislatures. By creating a constitutional requirement where none is written, the Court is substituting its own subjective notions of 'fairness' for the text of the Constitution and the decisions of duly elected state legislatures. Nothing in the Due Process Clause invalidates New York's legislative decision to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in its juvenile courts.
Analysis:
This decision was a landmark extension of the due process protections afforded to juveniles, building directly on the foundation of In re Gault. By constitutionalizing the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard for delinquency adjudications based on criminal acts, the Court significantly increased the prosecution's burden and provided juveniles with a critical safeguard against wrongful convictions. The ruling further blurred the line between the rehabilitative ideals of the juvenile system and the procedural formalities of the adult criminal system. It solidified the principle that when a juvenile's liberty is at stake in a manner comparable to an adult's, core procedural protections of criminal law must apply, regardless of the 'civil' label attached to the proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for In re Winship