Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): T.R. (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 6, 15, 556 N.E.2d 439; Children’s Home of Marion Cty. v. Fetter (1914), 90 Ohio St. 110, 127, 106 N.E. 761; Ex parte Januszewski (C.C.Ohio 1911), 196 F. 123, 127. In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 66. {¶ 65} Despite the differing goals of juvenile and adult courts, the establishment of juvenile courts was not a license for the General Assembly to deprive juveniles of their constitutional rights. In fact, juveniles are entitled to a range of rights grounded in constitutional protections. See Kent, 383 U.S. at 562, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 367-368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (applying reasonable-doubt standard to juvenile offenders); Gault, 387 U.S. at 41, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (<HOLDING>); State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings (B) recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings (C) recognizing that juveniles have no right to jury trial and that juvenile proceedings unlike adult prosecutions are rehabilitative in nature (D) holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel (E) holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles
Output (English): recognizing that juveniles have no right to jury trial and that juvenile proceedings unlike adult prosecutions are rehabilitative in nature