In what case did the US Supreme Court say that juveniles aren't entitled to a jury trial?

Answer 1

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 (1971)

In McKeiver, Justice Blackmun, presenting the opinion of the Court, explained that the purpose of applying due process protections to juvenile court proceedings, as allowed pursuant to the Court's decisions in In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967) and In Re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970), was fundamental fairness with regard to fact-finding.

In neither case did the Court extend the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to juvenile court proceedings, because the intent of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, and a jury trial creates a more adversarial environment that can undermine that goal. "Equating the adjudicative phase of the juvenile proceeding with a criminal trial ignores the aspects of fairness, concern, sympathy, and paternal attention inherent in the juvenile court system." Juvenile court is not criminal court.

This decision was later upheld in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982) and Schall v. Martin, 467 US 253 (1984).

It's important to note that McKeiver did not preclude individual states from providing juveniles with a jury option, but simply did not require them to do so.

Blackmun clarified this point: "The imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not strengthen greatly, if at all, the factfinding function, and would, contrarily, provide an attrition of the juvenile court's assumed ability to function in a unique manner. It would not remedy the defects of the system. Meager as has been the hoped-for advance in the juvenile field, the alternative would be regressive, would lose what has been gained, and would tend once again to place the juvenile squarely in the routine of the criminal process.

"The juvenile concept held high promise. We are reluctant to say that, despite disappointments of grave dimensions, it still does not hold promise, and we are particularly reluctant to say, as do the Pennsylvania appellants here, that the system cannot accomplish its rehabilitative goals. So much depends on the availability of resources, on the interest and commitment of the public, on willingness to learn, and on understanding as to cause and effect and cure. In this field, as in so many others, one perhaps learns best by doing. We are reluctant to disallow the States to experiment further and to seek in new and different ways the elusive answers to the problems of the young, and we feel that we would be impeding that experimentation by imposing the jury trial. The States, indeed, must go forward. If, in its wisdom, any State feels the jury trial is desirable in all cases, or in certain kinds, there appears to be no impediment to its installing a system embracing that feature. That, however, is the State's privilege and not its obligation."

In 1971, no states offered jury trials. As of 2009, ten states grant the right of juveniles to jury trials, and another eleven states allow jury trials under limited circumstances.

Often, US Supreme Court decisions follow trends in state courts. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Court may extend 6th Amendment protection to children and teens.

Answer 2

In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)

In Gault, the US Supreme Court extended the Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel to juveniles whose liberty was at risk. The Court also held juveniles are entitled to many of the same due process rights as adults, such as being advised of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment rights to be informed of the charges and to confront witnesses against him or her. They were also extended the rights to call witnesses on their behalf and to appeal the court's decision.

Answer 3

In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)

In Gault, the US Supreme Court held juveniles are entitled to many (but not all) of the same due process rights as adults, such as being advised of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, to be informed of charges, and to confront witnesses against him or her. They were also extended the rights to call witnesses on their behalf and to appeal the court's decision.