In re Winship
Significance, Due Process Requires Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Creating Rights, Further Readings
State of New York
That his conviction of a crime in a juvenile delinquency proceeding was unconstitutional because the state did not prove that he committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Rena K. Uviller
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Hugo Lafayette Black, Warren E. Burger, Potter Stewart
Date of Decision
31 March 1970
That the criminal law standard requiring proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is a constitutional requirement, and it applies equally to adults and juveniles.
The Court's decision in Winship was important in two respects. First, it reaffirmed the Court's earlier decision in Gault that juveniles accused of a crime are entitled to the same constitutional protections provided to adults accused of a crime. Second, it clarified that whether in the state or federal courts, a criminal defendant cannot be convicted unless the prosecution proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 (1895).
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
- Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973).
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975).
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
- Jack Ruby Trial: 1964 - A Police Buff, Most Jurors Saw The Shooting, Psychomotor Epilepsy, Eeg Tracings, Suggestions For Further Reading
- In re Gault - Significance, Supreme Court Declares Juvenile Justice System Delinquent As To Due Process
- In re Winship - Significance
- In re Winship - Further Readings
- In re Winship - Due Process Requires Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
- In re Winship - Creating Rights
- Other Free Encyclopedias