Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Significance, The Due Process Clause, The Rehabilitation Of Youthful Offenders, Courts Granting More Rights

trial jury york june

Plaintiffs

Joseph McKeiver, Edward Terry

Defendant

State of Pennsylvania

Plaintiffs' Claim

That minors had the constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal proceedings against them.

Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff

Daniel E. Farmer

Chief Defense Lawyer

Arlen Specter

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William O. Douglas

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

21 June 1971

Decision

Trial by jury is a constitutional right that does not apply to minors.

Related Cases

  • In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

Sources

Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.

Further Readings

  • Herbers, John. "Court, 6-3, Says Jury Trial Is Not Required for Youths." New York Times, June 22, 1971, p. 1.
  • Kramer, Donald T. Legal Rights of Children, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
  • Michigan Law Review, Vol. 70, November 1971, pp. 171-194.
  • Oelsner, Leslie. "Would They Do Better with a Jury Trial?" New York Times, June 27, 1971, sec. IV, p. 8.

Additional Topics

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Significance

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - The Due Process Clause

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - The Rehabilitation Of Youthful Offenders

The juvenile justice system in the United States had its origins in Chicago at the onset of the twentieth century, and its reform-minded tenets and goals of rehabilitation rather than punishment had gradually taken hold and become the law of the land. Individual states administered juvenile courts. The courts were considered a support system designed to enfold the juvenile within a framework of so…

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Courts Granting More Rights

In the years prior to McKeiver's case, the American courts had made a number of benevolent decisions aimed at protecting youths within the system. This culminated in the 1967 In re Gault case, which secured for juvenile defendants the right to an attorney, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination, which were already firm tenets of the adult criminal system. S…

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - Reversed Trend

On the 6-3 vote on McKeiver v. Pennsylvania announced on 21 June 1971, the Court tried to reaffirm its faith in juvenile legal system, though admitting it did suffer serious flaws. It asserted that the constitutional right to a trial by jury did not extend to minors, but did not bar the practice in the ten or so states that occasionally allowed it. Though the vote was 6-3, five separate opinions w…

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - The Rights Of Minors

The definition of "minor" has changed from time to time and place to place in American history. Before the passage in 1971 of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which gave the the right to vote to 18-year-olds, 21 was considered the age of majority. Differing laws have created odd situations: in some states people can get married--perhaps the greatest commitment in life, aside from having children--at 14…

Memoirs v. Massachusetts - Lower Court Found Fanny Hill Obscene, Justice Douglas Noted Definition Of Obscene Objective, Dissenting Justices Find Differing Conclusions [next] [back] Maryland v. Wirtz - Significance, Minimum Wage And Overtime, Interstate Commerce And Labor Peace, Disrupting The Fiscal Policy Of The States

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

about 4 years ago

Thank you so much for this information this is great.

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! REALLY HELPED ME