Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in America Introduction • We are now starting Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in America. • So far, we have covered and discussed the historical background of juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice system in the United States, criminological theories that help to expand our understanding of juvenile delinquency, the complex relationship between police officers and juveniles, juvenile gangs, and key actors that help play crucial roles as they relate to the structure of the juvenile court system. Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings • If you will recall, you learned about juvenile defense attorneys, juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and the juvenile court judge in the previous unit. • In this unit, you will take what you have learned and expand your knowledge, exploring U.S. Supreme Court cases that helped define and direct juvenile corrections, juvenile defense attorneys, juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and juvenile court judges. Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings • Before we begin, watch the video linked below that continues the story of Little John, a juvenile. https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_c ontent/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj 2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4 • Click here to access the transcript for this video. https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Emergency_Services/BCJ/BCJ2201/15K/transcripts/BCJ2201_UnitV_Transcript.pdf https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4 https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4 Consider the Following You will want to start thinking about this question as you read through the following U.S. Supreme Court decisions and cases: • How does this case directly relate to juvenile defense attorneys and juvenile court judges who preside over juvenile court cases? Court Cases The information below provides a brief description of some of the cases we will explore. Figure 1: U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting juvenile court system. (“U.S. Supreme Court Cases,” 1999) https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html Kent v. United States So, let’s begin by examining the first landmark case you will learn about: Kent v. United States. Before we can examine the case, we need to know the background and historical makeup of the case. • In 1961, Morris Kent was a 16-year-old juvenile who was charged with rape and robbery. • While in custody, Kent confessed to the criminal charges and crimes against him. Kent v. United States • Kent’s defense lawyer filed a request ...

1. Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme
Court Rulings and the Impact on
the Juvenile Justice System in
America
Introduction
• We are now starting Unit V: Significant U.S. Supreme Court
Rulings and the Impact on the Juvenile Justice System in
America.
• So far, we have covered and discussed the historical
background of juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice
system in the United States, criminological theories that help
to expand our understanding of juvenile delinquency, the
complex relationship between police officers and juveniles,
juvenile gangs, and key actors that help play crucial roles as
they relate to the structure of the juvenile court system.
Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
• If you will recall, you learned about juvenile defense
attorneys,
juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and the juvenile court judge in
the previous unit.

2. • In this unit, you will take what you have learned and expand
your knowledge, exploring U.S. Supreme Court cases that
helped define and direct juvenile corrections, juvenile defense
attorneys, juvenile prosecuting attorneys, and juvenile court
judges.
Unit V: U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
• Before we begin, watch the video linked
below that continues the story of Little
John, a juvenile.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_c
ontent/courses/emergency_services/bcj/bcj
2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
• Click here to access the transcript for this
video.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emerge
ncy_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Emer
gency_Services/BCJ/BCJ2201/15K/transcripts/BCJ2201_UnitV_
Transcript.pdf
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emerge
ncy_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/csu_content/courses/emerge
ncy_services/bcj/bcj2201/15K/video/unitv_video.mp4
Consider the Following
You will want to start thinking about this question as you read
through the following U.S. Supreme Court decisions and cases:

3. • How does this case directly relate to juvenile defense
attorneys
and juvenile court judges who preside over juvenile court
cases?
Court Cases
The information below provides a brief description of some of
the cases we will explore.
Figure 1: U.S. Supreme Court decisions impacting juvenile
court system.
(“U.S. Supreme Court Cases,” 1999)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html
Kent v. United States
So, let’s begin by examining the first landmark case you will
learn
about: Kent v. United States. Before we can examine the case,
we need to know the background and historical makeup of the
case.
• In 1961, Morris Kent was a 16-year-old juvenile who was
charged with rape and robbery.
• While in custody, Kent confessed to the criminal charges and
crimes against him.

4. Kent v. United States
• Kent’s defense lawyer filed a request for a judicial hearing as
it
related to the jurisdiction of the case.
• Jurisdiction means whether or not the case should be tried and
take place in the locality and/or jurisdiction where the crime
occurred or move the case to an alternative jurisdiction for a
more fair and balanced trial.
• The juvenile court judge did not rule on this motion filed by
Kent's attorney and entered a motion stating that the court
was waiving jurisdiction after making a full investigation (“U.S.
Supreme Court cases,” 1999).
Kent v. United States
• Now, what is meant by full investigation is left up for
interpretation.
• If you remember from a previous unit, judges often have a
wide range of discretion in their courtroom.
• Kent was found guilty and sentenced to 30-90 years in prison.
• The main issue from the case is whether Kent was denied his
constitutional rights because he was a minor.
• In appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kent's attorney
argued
that the judge had not made a complete investigation and that
Kent was denied constitutional rights simply because he was a

5. minor (“U.S. Supreme Court cases,” 1999).
In re Gault
Another U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision is In re Gault.
Let’s look at the background of the In re Gault case.
• Gerald Gault, age 15, was accused of making an obscene
phone call to his neighbor.
• After the call , Mrs. Cook filed a complaint with the local
police
department that resulted in Gerald’s arrest and transport to a
local juvenile detention center.
• The issue of lack of due process starts to unfold.
In re Gault
• “At the time of the arrest related to the phone call, Gault’s
parents were at work and the arresting officer left no notice
for them and did not make an effort to inform them of their
son’s arrest” (United States Courts, n.d., para. 2).
• Next, we will see in even more detail how Gerald’s due
process rights were violated.
• “At a hearing the next day, the complaining witness was not
present, no sworn testimony was heard, no transcript was
taken, nor testimony recorded” (National Juvenile Defender
Center, n.d.-a, para. 2).

6. In re Gault
• The judge presiding over the case decided to return Gerald to
the juvenile detention center until he decided what to do
with Gerald and the case.
• On June 15, 1964, “the judge entered an order that Gerald
was delinquent, mandating his incarceration in a residential
facility until he turned 21” (National Juvenile Defender
Center, n.d.-a, para. 2).
• After appealing to the Arizona Supreme Court and finally the
U.S. Supreme Court, the decision on whether Gerald Gault’s
due process rights were violated was presented by the U.S.
Supreme Court Judges.
In re Gault
• The In re Gault decision handed down from the U.S. Supreme
Court mandated that juveniles are to be afforded the same
constitutional rights as adults because juveniles are also U.S.
citizens.
• These constitutional rights include, but are not limited to,
• the right to an attorney,
• the right to remain silent,
• the right to a formal notice of charges, and
• the right to a court hearing.

7. In Re Winship
• Another U.S. Supreme Court landmark case and decision we
will examine is In re Winship.
• Again, let’s examine the background of the case first. Samuel
Winship, age 12, was accused of stealing $112 dollars from a
woman’s handbag.
• An employee at the time stated he had seen Samuel take the
money from the woman’s purse.
• However, other patrons and customers in the store at the
same time claim the store employee was not in position to
see the criminal act take place.
In Re Winship
• As students in criminal justice, you may start to think there
may be reasonable doubt in this case.
• However, before the In re Winship decision, “preponderance”
of the evidence was all that was needed to for a guilty verdict
of juvenile delinquents.
• Now, as many of you already know, as it relates to criminal
justice cases, proof beyond a reasonable doubt must be
established for a guilty verdict to be presented.
• This was not always the case as it related to juvenile
delinquents.

8. In Re Winship
• The In re Winship case was a landmark case in United States
history because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled juveniles are
also offered the same right.
• According to the National Juvenile Defender Center (n.d.-b),
“the Supreme Court held that for adjudications of
delinquency, the standard of proof required is the same as for
criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt)” (para. 4).
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, In re Terry, and In
re Barbara Burrus
• In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision for
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, In re Terry, and In re Barbara
Burrus.
• These cases were heard together to examine if the due
process clause (right to jury trial) of the Fourteenth
Amendment applies to juveniles.
• The Court held that juveniles do not have the right to a trial
by jury. However, states may provide juveniles with jury
trials.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, In re Terry, and In

9. re Barbara Burrus
• Joseph McKeiver was 15 years old when charged with
robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods (“McKeiver
v. Pennsylvania,” n.d.). He requested a jury trial.
• The request for a jury trial was denied.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
• Edward Terry was 16 years old when charged with assault
and battery of a police officer (“McKeiver v. Pennsylvania,”
n.d.). He requested a jury trial.
• The request for a jury trial was denied
In re Terry
• This was a consolidated case that included more than 40
juveniles (“McKeiver v. Pennsylvania,” n.d.). These
juveniles had a range of charges and requested jury trials.
• The requests for jury trials were denied.
In re Barbara Burrus
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, In re Terry, and In
re Barbara Burrus
The ruling explained the following facets:
Not all constitutional rights of adults should be given to
juveniles.

10. If the juvenile does receive a jury trial, it may be adversarial,
which is in
contrast to an informal, protective proceeding.
A fair process does not necessarily include a jury trial.
A jury trial could bring delays and formality to juvenile
proceedings.
Although the juvenile is not required to receive a jury trial, the
judge may still
use a jury in an advisory capacity.
Breed v. Jones
• Another landmark case is Breed v. Jones.
• Gary Jones, age 17, was charged with robbery and detained
for a juvenile court hearing (“U.S. Supreme Court cases,”
1999).
• The juvenile court hearing found the charges to be true, and
at the disposition hearing, it was determined that the
services of the juvenile court could not assist him (“U.S.
Supreme Court cases,” 1999).
• He was then waived to adult court that found him guilty of
robbery.
• His counsel filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that waiving
him to adult court constituted double jeopardy.

11. Breed v. Jones
• The court denied the petition and said that it was not double
jeopardy because juvenile adjudication is not a trial.
• However, the Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile found to
have violated a criminal statute is equivalent to a trial in
criminal court.
• Hence, double jeopardy occurred in his case.
• In this decision, the Court also stated that jeopardy occurs
when evidence is presented at the adjudication hearing.
Consequently, a waiver occurring after this constitutes double
jeopardy.
Schall v. Martin
• In 1977, Gregory Martin was arrested and charged with
possession of a weapon, assault, and robbery.
• He, along with two other juveniles, had allegedly hit another
juvenile on the head with a gun and stolen his jacket and
sneakers (“U.S. Supreme Court cases,” 1999).
• The court found that he was at serious risk to commit
another crime, hence he was detained pending adjudication.
Schall v. Martin
• Martin’s attorney filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that

12. the detainment was unfair as it was essentially another
punishment.
• The U.S. Supreme Court decided that preventive detention is
constitutional as it “serves a legitimate State objective in
protecting both the juvenile and society from pretrial crime
and is not intended to punish the juvenile” (“U.S. Supreme
Court cases,” 1999, para. 25).
Stanford v. Kentucky
• Kevin Stanford, at age 17, was convicted of murder, sodomy,
robbery, and receiving stolen property.
• He was sentenced to death under the Kentucky statute that
allowed capital punishment for juveniles convicted of Class A
felonies or capital crimes (“Stanford v. Kentucky,” n.d.).
• Stanford appealed, arguing that capital punishment for an
individual his age violated his constitutional rights.
• His case was consolidated with that of Wilkins v. Missouri.
Wilkins was a 16 year old who was appealing his sentence of
capital punishment for murder.
Stanford v. Kentucky
• In their decision, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the
evolving standards of decency.
• They stated that there is not a national consensus regarding
the use of capital punishment for 16 and 17 year olds

13. because some states allowed it for those 16 and under, and
others allowed it for those 17 and under (“Stanford v.
Kentucky,” n.d.).
• Consequently, the Court ruled that the age at which a juvenile
is subjected to the death penalty should be decided by each
state rather than the Court. Hence, the juvenile death penalty
is not unconstitutional.
Roper v. Simmons
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court would again be presented
with a case involving the juvenile death penalty.
• In 1993, Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death for
throwing a neighbor over a bridge to her death (“Roper v.
Simmons,” n.d.).
Roper v. Simmons
• The U.S. Supreme Court again held that the standards of
decency are evolving to where society considers executing a
juvenile to be cruel and unusual punishment.
• Justice Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, indicated
research stating that juveniles lack adult maturity and a sense
of responsibility.
• Additionally, the Court specified that there is overwhelming
international opinion against juvenile execution.

14. References
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/322
National Juvenile Defender Center. (n.d.-a). In re Gault.
Retrieved from http://njdc.info/practice-
policy-resources/united-states-supreme-court-juvenile-justice-
jurisprudence/in-re-gault/
National Juvenile Defender Center. (n.d.-b). United States
Supreme Court juvenile justice
jurisprudence. Retrieved from http://njdc.info/practice-policy-
resources/united-states-
supreme-court-juvenile-justice-jurisprudence/
Roper v. Simmons. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633
Stanford v. Kentucky. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-5765
United States Courts. (n.d.). Facts and case summary: In re
Gault 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Retrieved from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-
activities/facts-and-case-
summary-re-gault
U.S. Supreme Court cases have had an impact on the character
and procedures of the juvenile
justice system. (1999, December). 1999 National Report Series,
Juvenile Justice Bulletin:
Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html

15. Template for
Juvenile Due Process
Use this template to provide information about three of the
major cases discussed in this unit.
Specifically, offer the following insight:
1. An overview of the case
a. Who, what, when, where, and why
b. The decision of the lower court(s)
2. How each case affected the rights of the juvenile
Case Overview
1. An overview of the case
a. Who, what, when, where, and why
b. The decision of the lower court(s)
2. How the case affected the rights of the juvenile
Kent v. United States
The effect on the Rights of the Juvenile
Case Overview

16. The Effect on the Rights of the Juvenile
1. An overview of the case
a. Who, what, when, where, and why
b. The decision of the lower court(s)
2. How the case affected the rights of the juvenile
In re Gault
Case Overview
1. An overview of the case
a. Who, what, when, where, and why
b. The decision of the lower court(s)
2. How the case affected the rights of the juvenile
In re Winship
The Effects on the Rights of the Juvenile