No, the Constitution doesn't guarantee a jury trial for kids in juvenile court. The whole point of juvenile court is to be different from adult criminal court. It's supposed to be less formal and focus more on helping kids get back on track, not just punishing them. Forcing every case to have a jury would make it slow, complicated, and adversarial, just like a regular trial. This would ruin the unique, protective system designed for young people.

No, a jury trial isn't required. Adult court is about blame and punishment. Juvenile court is supposed to be about figuring out why a kid is in trouble and helping them. Because the goals are different, and the consequences aren't as harsh as a criminal conviction, a jury isn't as necessary.

No, because I don't think the Constitution forces states to have jury trials for *anyone*, adult or kid. But, if I had to follow the Court's previous rulings that give adults this right, I'd say kids should get it too, because juvenile court has started to look a lot like regular criminal court.

It depends. The kids in Pennsylvania don't need a jury because their trials were open to the public, so everyone could see what was happening. But the kids in North Carolina *do* need one because their trial was held in secret. Without the public or a jury to watch over the judge, there's no protection against an unfair trial.

Yes, kids absolutely deserve a jury trial. If a kid can be locked up for years for doing something that's a crime for an adult, they should get the same rights as an adult. It's unfair to say that because you're young, you get fewer protections when your freedom is on the line. Calling it 'delinquency' instead of 'crime' doesn't change the fact that a kid could be sent to a place that is basically a prison.

No, the Constitution does not require jury trials for kids in juvenile courts because the Supreme Court has not said that all the rules for adult criminal trials have to be used in juvenile cases. Having jury trials could make it harder for juvenile courts to focus on helping kids instead of just punishing them. The Court wants states to keep trying to find ways to help kids who get in trouble without having to do everything the same way as adult courts.

Yes, kids should have the right to jury trials in juvenile courts when they might be locked up for a long time like an adult would be. The Constitution talks about rights for all 'persons,' not just adults. Kids can be sent to places that are a lot like prisons, sometimes with grown-ups. Being found guilty in juvenile court can make people think badly of you, kind of like being convicted of a crime. Just saying it's faster or juvenile courts are special isn't a good enough reason to not give kids this important right.

Agrees with the final decision because juvenile courts are mainly supposed to help kids, not punish them like adult courts do. There's less worry about unfair treatment in juvenile courts. What happens to kids found guilty in juvenile court is also not as bad as what happens to adults convicted of crimes. States can choose to have jury trials in juvenile court, but the Constitution doesn't require it.

Agrees with the Pennsylvania decision because it seems like people could watch the trials there, which is kind of like having a jury to make sure the judge is fair. But disagrees with the North Carolina decision because the law there said other people couldn't watch the trials even when the kids wanted them to. Also, the North Carolina cases made it seem more likely that the court was being used unfairly.

Agrees with the final decision because jury trials aren't required by the Constitution for either criminal or juvenile cases in state courts. If juvenile courts are almost the same as adult criminal courts, then kids should get jury trials. But disagrees with an earlier case that said jury trials are required in adult criminal cases.

—the Supreme Court held that trial by jury in civil juvenile delinquency proceedings is not required by the due process clause.

The plurality of the high court reasoned that a trial by jury would "remake the juvenile proceeding into a fully adversary process and... put an effective end to what has been... an... informal protective process."

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause does not require a jury trial in juvenile proceedings.

"If the formalities of the criminal adjudicative process are to be superimposed upon the juvenile court system, there is little need for its separate existence. Perhaps that ultimate disillusionment will come one day, but for the moment we are disinclined to give impetus to it."

—and further opined that "[t] he imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not strengthen greatly, if at all, the factfinding function

However, the court has concluded that the Constitution does not afford the right to a jury trial in juvenile proceedings

—the Court concluded that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial in a juvenile proceeding.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions.

—the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury trial in federal juvenile delinquency proceedings, unless the federal delinquency act is distinguishable from the various state programs in such a way as to emphasize those aspects of the federal program which are unique to criminal prosecutions.

Due process also requires that the allegations in a delinquency petition be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and protects a juvenile from double jeopardy.

No, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not assure the right to a trial by jury in state juvenile court proceedings. The Court has not held that all rights constitutionally assured to an adult accused of a crime are to be enforced in juvenile proceedings. While due process requires fundamental fairness, a jury is not a necessary component of accurate fact-finding. Imposing the requirement of a jury trial would remake the juvenile proceeding into a fully adversary process, effectively ending the idealistic prospect of an intimate, informal, and protective proceeding. Such a change would introduce delay and formality, potentially destroying the unique nature of the juvenile system and impeding the states' ability to experiment with rehabilitative solutions for troubled youth.

No, the Due Process Clause does not require states to afford jury trials in juvenile courts. The juvenile justice system is founded on different assumptions than the criminal law system, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment and blameworthiness. The risks that necessitate juries in criminal cases—such as guarding against corrupt prosecutors or biased judges—are of a lesser magnitude in the juvenile context, and the consequences of a delinquency adjudication are less severe than a criminal conviction.

No, a jury trial is not constitutionally required in state juvenile proceedings. This conclusion is based on the broader principle that criminal jury trials are not constitutionally required of the states under either the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause. However, if the precedent of Duncan v. Louisiana were to be followed, it would be difficult to deny this right to juveniles, given that juvenile proceedings have in practice become increasingly similar to criminal trials.

No, in the Pennsylvania case, but Yes, in the North Carolina case. A jury trial is not constitutionally required so long as some other aspect of the process adequately protects the juvenile from government oppression. In the Pennsylvania cases, the proceedings were open to the public and press, which serves as a sufficient safeguard. However, in the North Carolina cases, the public was excluded from the trial, which involved politically charged demonstrations. Without the check of either a jury or public scrutiny, the juveniles' due process rights were violated.

Yes, the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, require a jury trial in these circumstances. Where a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult and faces the prospect of substantial confinement, they are entitled to the same procedural protections as an adult, including a jury trial. The label 'delinquency' does not change the fact that the state is seeking to deprive a person of liberty for a criminal act; to deny a jury trial in this context is a plain denial of equal protection.

No, the Due Process Clause does not require jury trials in juvenile court delinquency proceedings because the Court has refrained from imposing all constitutional requirements for adult criminal trials on state juvenile proceedings. The imposition of jury trials would not strengthen the factfinding function and could disrupt the unique nature and flexibility of the juvenile court system. States should be allowed to experiment further with rehabilitative solutions in juvenile courts without the requirement of jury trials. The Court emphasized that juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and that superimposing the formalities of criminal trials on the juvenile system would undermine its distinct goals and functions.

Yes, juveniles should be entitled to jury trials in delinquency proceedings because where a juvenile faces a potential loss of liberty comparable to that of an adult criminal defendant, they should receive the same due process protections, including the right to a jury trial. The Fourteenth Amendment refers to 'any person' not 'any adult.' Juveniles can be confined in institutions akin to prisons, sometimes with adults, and adjudications of delinquency carry a stigma similar to criminal convictions. Arguments about expediency and the special nature of juvenile courts are insufficient to deny a constitutional right.

Concurs in the judgment because the juvenile justice system has a fundamentally different purpose than the adult criminal system - rehabilitation rather than punishment. The risks necessitating juries in criminal cases, like overzealous prosecution and biased judges, are lessened in the juvenile context. The consequences of a delinquency adjudication are also less severe than a criminal conviction. States may use juries in juvenile proceedings if they choose, but the Due Process Clause does not require it.

Concurs in the judgment for the Pennsylvania cases because the public was seemingly not excluded from the proceedings, providing a safeguard analogous to a jury trial against judicial oppression. However, dissents in the North Carolina cases because state law required exclusion of the public from the proceedings over the juveniles' objections, and the cases presented a substantial risk of the court being used for political ends with no alternative safeguards.

Concurs in the judgments on the ground that jury trials are not constitutionally required of the states in criminal or juvenile proceedings. If the premise is accepted that juvenile proceedings have become equivalent to criminal trials in practice, then under Duncan v. Louisiana, jury trials would be required for juveniles absent a restructuring of the juvenile system. However, disagrees with the Duncan decision.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot