In re Winship
From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
In re Winship | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Argued January 20, 1970 Decided March 31, 1970 |
|||||
Full case name | In the Matter of Samuel Winship, Appellant | ||||
Citations | 397 U.S. 358 (more)
90 S. Ct. 1068; 25 L. Ed. 2d 368; 51 O.O.2d 323
|
||||
Prior history | 91 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1968), aff'd, 247 N.E.2d. 253 (N.Y. 1969). | ||||
Holding | |||||
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires that every element of a criminal offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of the 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 United States Supreme Court decision that 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 beyond reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence.[1] 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).[2]
See also
References
<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>