In re Winship
| In re Winship | |
|---|---|
 preponderance of the evidence standard used heretofore in juvenile court. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Dissent | Burger, joined by Stewart |
| Dissent | Black |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a
constitutional case).[1]
: 17
In an opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court held that when a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved
preponderance of the evidence.[2] The case has come to stand for a broader proposition, however: in a criminal prosecution, every essential element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993).[3] This case marked a rejection of the preponderance of evidence standard in any criminal cases and expanded the protections afforded by the Due Process Clause.[4]
See also
References
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]
- ^ Varat, J.D. et al. Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, Concise Thirteenth Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2009, p. 356
- ^ Varat, p. 357
- ^ "The Restoration of In re Winship: A Comment on Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Cases After Patterson v. New York". Michigan Law Review. January 26, 2022.
External links
- Text of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |