Concurrence Harlan | End date 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). Majority Brennan, joined by Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall Dissent Burger, joined by Stewart Similar In re Gault, Apprendi v New Jersey, Roper v Simmons, Lum v Rice, Elk v Wilkins | ||
In re winship
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case). The decision did not specify which facts constitute the charged crime.
Contents
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. 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).