In re Winship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2007) |
| In re Winship | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| 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 [edit]
References [edit]
|
This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
