0
What US Supreme Court decision held juvenile cases require the same level of evidence as adult cases?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
In re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970)
In Winship, the Court elevated the standard of proof for conviction in juvenile court cases from "a preponderance of the evidence" to "beyond reasonable doubt," as required in adult criminal proceedings.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who makes the laws in Argentina?
The laws in Argentina are made by the government and passed by there supreme courts
Formal processing of a juvenile offense through the juvenile court?
Formal HearingIf, upon assessment of a juvenile's case, a formal hearing is deemed necessary, an initial decision must be made as to how the case will be heard. In many states, specified cases may be heard in either juvenile or criminal court. In such situations the prosecutor is generally given the liberty to decide where the case will be tried. Most cases involving juveniles fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. However, in some states, laws have been instituted that require particularly egregious offenses to be tried in criminal court. Juvenile Court HearingsJuvenile courts receive two petitions from prosecutors: "delinquency petitions" and "waiver petitions." A delinquency petition asks a judge to declare a youth "delinquent," and a waiver petition asks the juvenile court to forfeit its authority over a case (that by precedent or law would fall under its jurisdiction) and transfer it to criminal court. A delinquency petition informs the judge of the allegations against a youth and asks the judge to "adjudicate," (hear and judge) the case in a formal hearing. During an adjudicatory hearing the testimony of witnesses and the facts of the case are heard. If the juvenile is found "delinquent" by the judge (or in some states, by a jury), a "disposition hearing" is scheduled. In the interim, the probation office is tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the youth and recommending a course of action for the court to take. Probation officials will take into account the results of any studies that have been made of the youth. Often these include "psychological evaluations" and "diagnostic tests." The "disposition plan" advises the court on which of the available options would best benefit the youth and the community.
In what case did the US Supreme Court say that juveniles aren't entitled to a jury trial?
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.
Is it legal for a condo bylaw in Canada to say no pets?
Probably, yes. If you require the companionship or service of a service animal, you may be able to petition the board for an exception to the By-law. However, the decision of the board is final.
Can police question a minor in new york?
Yes, it is a misconception that minors must have the parent or legal guardian present when being interviewed by authorities. The minor has the same options that an adult has, which is to refuse to answer questions and if placed under arrest has the right to legal counsel either private or a public defender.
Why would the supreme court agree to review a lower court's decision?
Certain cases are important enough to require the authoritative decision of the nation's highest court rather than being decided by a lower court. If issues of constitutional interpretation are involved, that is the specialty of the Supreme Court.
What criteria do you think should be used to determine whether a Supreme Court decision is a landmark decision?
So a landmark decision is like a decision that is groundbreaking, incredible, new, something that changes the lives of millions of Americans. When we banned slavery and gave African Americans their freedoms and rights that was a landmark decision. You also need to remember that the Supreme Court receives thousands of court cases but only accepts those that require it to interpret only the meaning of statutes or administrative rules, not their constitutionality.
What does a decision require?
thought
Was dred Scott decision pro or antislavery?
In the 1857 US Supreme Court decision that involved the Dredd Scott case, the Court stated the slaves were property and, also, they could never be US citizens. This pro-slavery decision would later require an amendment to the US Constitution in order to abolish slavery.
What size majority of the Supreme Court is needed to overturn a Supreme Court ruling?
A simple majority can overturn a previous ruling. This is what happened when the current idiots declared corporations "people" for legal purposes and will allow them to buy and sell politicians even more in US elections.
What do Custom made decision require?
CREATIVITY
Why was the decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the Supreme Court significant?
The decision to assign jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for cases where the parties are in different states is something that was decided in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is thought that this is the only way to guarantee each party that the judging would be impartial, though it does require extensive research of state laws for Federal court staff.
What type of vote is required for a majority decision in the US Supreme Court?
For a case to be heard before the U. S. Supreme Court there must be a quorum. This requires at least six Justices to be present. There is a total of nine Justices on the Supreme Court but illness or recusals could cause less than 9 on a case. For a decision to be rendered it requires a majority of the Justices hearing the case. If all Justices are present the majority would require 5 or more to met this requirement.
Why a person can still be convicted if it is a split decision?
Only criminal matters taken to jury trial require unanimity. Civil matters are determined on a much lower standard of proof, the preponderance of evidence in the opinion of the majority of the jurors.
How many justices are needed to make a decision?
US Supreme Court decisions require a simple majority vote (more than half). For example, if all nine justices hear a case, five must vote in agreement to form a majority.
How does Congress veto a US Supreme Court decision?
Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. If the decision interprets the Constitution or an Amendment, Congress cannot override the decision except by calling for a Constitutional Convention to change that provision of the Constitution or Amendment. (Not likely) This would require cooperation from the States, and is not something Congress could accomplish on its own. If the decision interprets a federal law, Congress can amend or replace the law to correct its deficiency. If the Supreme Court interprets both by comparing the law to the Constitution or Amendment to see if the law is constitutional and decides the law is unconstitutional because it is vague or can be applied in a discriminatory manner, Congress can amend the law in such a way that the Constitutional problem is solved. Technically, this is not "overriding" the decision, but it is one way Congress can make a law do its intended purpose without being unconstitutionally vague about the subject and purpose. Other than that, only the Supreme Court can overturn its own precedent.
How do you differentiate philosophy from the positive science?
Sience is objective and requires empiracle evidence. Philosophy is subjective and does not require empiracle evidence.
