This chapter discusses Supreme Court cases that have shaped the due process rights of juveniles. It summarizes key cases such as Gault, which established juveniles' right to counsel and privilege against self-incrimination, and McKeiver, which found no right to jury trials for juveniles. The chapter also reviews rights of juveniles in school settings as well as their rights regarding search/seizure, curfews, and legal drinking ages.

1. Juvenile Justice: An Introduction, 7th ed.
Chapter 9
DUE PROCESS AND
JUVENILES

2. Chapter 9
What You Need to Know
• The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the rights of juvenile defendants in
several landmark cases.
• For example, the Gault decision ruled that juveniles have the privilege
against self-incrimination and the right to the assistance of counsel in
cases with the possibility of a decision to put the juvenile in confinement
in a locked facility.
• In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles do not
have the right to trial by jury.
• Reasonable corporal punishment is permissible in schools.
• Students do have limited free speech rights at school, but school officials
can exercise broad editorial control over student publications.
• School officials can search students when they have reasonable suspicion
to do so.
• Carefully drawn curfew laws have been upheld as constitutional.
Excessively vague laws have not been upheld.
• Raising the legal drinking age has had positive effects, although a number
of college presidents recently expressed concern that the age (21) affects
binge drinking on college campuses.

3. Chapter 9
The Landmark Supreme Court Cases
• Juveniles share some but not all of the same rights as adults. This
chapter will examine the landmark juvenile Supreme Court cases of
the 1960s and 1970s because those cases fundamentally altered
the contours of the juvenile justice system.
• Kent v. United States (1966) - The Supreme Court was faced with a
waiver case appeal wherein a 16-year old, Morris Kent, had been
transferred to adult criminal court without a hearing, without the
assistance of counsel, and without any statement of the reasons for
the judge’s decision to transfer the matter to the adult court.
• The Supreme Court justices decided that due process of law entitles
a defendant like Morris Kent to certain minimum safeguards,
including a hearing, the right to the assistance of an attorney, and a
statement of the reasons for transfer if the judge decides to
transfer the case to adult court.

4. Chapter 9
The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)
• In re Gault (1967) - Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old youth, was arrested
for allegedly making obscene phone calls to an adult woman. He
was adjudicated a delinquent in a court proceeding that resembled
a kangaroo court or a dictatorial tribunal rather than a court of law
and was sentenced to the state training school for a possible six-year
sentence. The maximum penalty for an adult committing the
exact same offense was a $50 fine and two months in jail.
• Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas ruled that juveniles do have
certain due process rights in delinquency proceedings in which
there is the possibility of confinement in a locked facility. Such
juveniles must have the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
and Sixth Amendment rights to adequate notice of
the charges against them, to confront and cross-examine their
accusers, and to the assistance of counsel.

5. Chapter 9
The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)
• In re Winship (1970) - An appeal of a New York case
involving a 12-year-old boy who had stolen $112
from a woman’s purse. The Supreme Court made
two rulings.
1. The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution requires that
adult criminals be convicted only by the standard of
“guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” or reasonable doubt
standard.
2. The Court extended the reasonable doubt standard of
proof to juvenile delinquency proceedings in which there
was the possibility of commitment to a locked facility.

6. Chapter 9
The Landmark Supreme Court Cases (cont.)
• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) - The Supreme Court took
up the issue of a juvenile’s right to a jury trial but declined to
go so far in extending adult rights as to grant juveniles the
right to jury trials for several reasons.
1. The Court did not want to turn the juvenile court process into a fully
adversarial process and end the idealistic prospect of an intimate,
informal protective proceeding.
2. The Court noted that because bench trials for adults often result in
accurate determinations of guilt, jury trials are not an absolute
necessity for accurate determinations of delinquency.
3. The Court also indicated that it was reluctant to impose a federal
requirement of a jury trial because such a mandate could prevent
individual states from experimenting with different methods.
4. The Court noted that it had not reached such total disillusionment
with the juvenile justice system to warrant abandoning it.

7. Chapter 9
Additional Supreme Court Rulings
• Graham v. Florida (2010) - The Supreme Court ruled
that a life without parole sentence is
unconstitutional for a juvenile offender who did not
commit homicide.
• The Court simply has ordered the states to allow
such offenders some way to demonstrate sufficient
maturity and rehabilitation to justify their release.
• Some states may determine that an offender is
irredeemable and should not be released. However,
it is important to note that is constitutional for a
juvenile to receive a LWOP sentence if they commit
murder.

8. Chapter 9
Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)
• Breed v. Jones (1975) - The Supreme Court made the waiver
process more explicit by ruling that states cannot first
adjudicate a juvenile a delinquent and then waive or transfer
the youth to adult court.
• The Court ruled that this violated the youth’s Sixth
Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
• J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) - The Supreme Court ruled
that courts should consider age as a factor in the custody
analysis when the child’s age was known to the officer or
would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer.
• Children may feel pressured to submit to questioning when
an adult would feel free to leave the interrogation because
children in general are less mature and responsible than
adults.

9. Chapter 9
Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)
• Fare v. Michael C. (1979) - A juvenile murder suspect
consented to an interrogation after he was denied
the opportunity to consult with his probation officer.
• The Supreme Court ruled that there is no
constitutional mandate to allow a suspect to speak
with his or her probation officer because the Sixth
Amendment specifies the right to assistance of
counsel.
• More importantly the court ruled that a child can
voluntarily waive his or her privilege against self-incrimination
without first speaking to his or her
parents and without first consulting an attorney.

10. Chapter 9
Additional Supreme Court Rulings (cont.)
• Schall v. Martin (1984) - The Supreme Court ruled that a
juvenile who is awaiting court action can be held in
preventive detention if there is adequate concern that the
juvenile would commit additional crimes while the primary
case is pending further action.
• The Court justified its decision on the basis that every state
permits such preventive detention for juveniles and on the
rationale that such detention protects both the juvenile and
society from the hazards of pretrial crime.
• The juvenile has the right to a hearing on the preventive
detention decision and a statement of the reasons for which
he or she is being detained.

11. Chapter 9
Search and Seizure
• Consideration of these landmark U.S. Supreme Court
cases demonstrate that juveniles do indeed have
basic rights at important stages of the juvenile justice
process, especially the waiver (transfer) hearing and
the adjudication (trial) stage.
– One issue in particular is search and seizure. When cases
involve juveniles it is most important to address consent
searches in which a defendant voluntarily allows the
police to search someone or one’s effects without a
search warrant.

12. Chapter 9
Rights in School
• Freedom of Speech - The U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld the basic principle that students have at least
some degree of constitutional protection in that they
do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
– This does not mean that students can say or express
anything they wish in whatever manner they wish.

13. Chapter 9
Rights in School (cont.)
• Ingraham v. Wright (1977) - The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that corporal punishment of students is
permissible so long as it is reasonable. The
reasonableness decision depends on;
- The seriousness of the offense, the attitude and past
behavior of the child, the nature and severity of the
punishment, the age and strength of the child, and the
availability of less severe but equal means of discipline.

14. Chapter 9
Rights in School (cont.)
• Lee v. Weisman (1992) - Ruled that school officials
erred in providing guidelines and permitting prayer
at a high school graduation ceremony. However,
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court upheld the right of
students to plan and lead prayer at school
functions.

15. Chapter 9
Rights in School (cont.)
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that a student search is legitimate if it
was reasonable in its justification and its extent. By
this, the Court means that;
– Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a
teacher or other school official will be “justified at its
inception” when there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the
student has violated or is violating either the law or the
rules of the school.

16. Chapter 9
Rights at Home in the Community
• The constitutionality of curfews - The U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that the law did not violate either
equal protection or free association grounds and
therefore was not unconstitutional. Curfews serve
as a compelling state interest, namely, to reduce
juvenile crime and victimization, while promoting
juvenile safety and well-being.

17. Chapter 9
Rights at Home in the Community (cont.)
• The legal drinking age - Proponents of a high
minimum drinking age argue that it reduces
automobile accidents and fatalities, especially for
adolescents. Therefore teens need to be protected
from their immaturity and impulsiveness because
they are inexperienced at both driving and drinking
alcohol.