Document: 397 U.S. 358 90 S.Ct. 1068 25 L.Ed.2d 368 In the Matter of Samuel WINSHIP, Appellant. No. 778. Argued Jan. 20, 1970. Decided March 31, Rena K. Uviller, New York City, for appellant. Stanley Buchsbaum, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellee. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Constitutional questions decided by this Court concerning juvenile process have centered on adjudicatory stage at 'which a determination is made as to whether 'delinquent' result alleged misconduct his part, with consequence that he may be committed state institution.' re Gault, 387 1, 13, 87 1428, 1436, 18 527 (1967). Gault that, although Fourteenth Amendment does not require hearing conform all requirements criminal trial or even usual administrative proceeding, Due Process Clause application during "the essentials due and fair treatment." Id., 30, 1445. This case presents single, narrow question proof beyond reasonable doubt among 'essentials treatment' required when charged an act which would constitute crime if adult.1 2 Section 712 Family Act defines delinquent 'a person over seven less than sixteen years age who any which, done adult, crime.' During 1967 hearing, conducted pursuant § 742 Act, judge in found appellant, then 12-year-old boy, had entered locker stolen $112 from woman's pocketbook. The petition appellant delinquency act, 'if crimes Larceny.' acknowledged might establish guilt doubt, but rejected appellant's contention such was Amendment. relied instead 744(b) provides '(a)ny conclusion (an adjudicatory) (juvenile) did acts must based preponderance evidence.'2 subsequent dispositional ordered placed training school initial period months, subject annual extensions commitment until 18th birthday—six case. Appellate Division Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion, 30 A.D.2d 781, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1968). Appeals four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining constitutionality 744(b), 24 N.Y.2d 196, 299 414, 247 N.W.2d 253 (1969).3 We noted probable jurisdiction 396 885, 179, 160 (1969). reverse. 3 * requirement charge established dates least our early Nation. 'demand higher degree persuasion cases recurrently expressed ancient times, (though) its crystallization into formula 'beyond doubt' seems occurred late 1798. It now accepted common law jurisdictions measure prosecution convince trier essential elements guilt.' C. McCormick, Evidence 321, pp. 681—682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence, 2497 (3d ed. 1940). Although virtually unanimous adherence reasonable-doubt standard common-law conclusively it process, 'reflect profound judgment about way should enforced justice administered.' Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 145, 155, 88 1444, 1451, 20 491 4 Expressions many opinions indicate has long been assumed constitutionally required. See, example, Miles United States, 103 304, 312, 26 L.Ed. 481 (1881); Davis 469, 488, 16 353, 358, 40 499 (1895); Holt 218 245, 253, 31 2, 6, 54 1021 (1910); Wilson 232 563, 569—570, 34 347, 349, 350, 58 728 (1914); Brinegar 338 160, 174, 69 1302, 1310, 93 1879 (1949); Leland Oregon, 343 790, 795, 72 1002, 1005, 1006, 96 1302 (1952); Holland 348 121, 138, 75 127, 136, 137, 99 150 Speiser Randall, 357 513, 525—526, 78 1332, 1342, 1460 (1958). Cf. Coffin 156 432, 15 394, 39 (1895). Frankfurter stated '(i)t duty Government doubt. notion—basic rightly one boasts free society—is safeguard historic, procedural content 'due process." supra, U.S., 802—803, S.Ct., 1009 (dissenting opinion). similar vein, said '(g)uilt proved evidence confined experience tradition, some extent embodied Constitution, crystallized rules consistent standard. These are historically grounded rights system, developed men dubious unjust convictions, resulting forfeitures life, liberty property.' implicit 'constitutions (which) recognize fundamental principles deemed protection life liberty.' murder conviction reversed because instructed jury their convict equally balanced regarding sanity accused. said: 'On contrary, entitled acquittal specific charged, upon evidence, there capable committing crime. No man deprived under forms unless jurors try him able, consciences, say before them sufficient show existence every fact necessary charged.' 484, 493, 357, 360. 5 plays vital role American scheme procedure. prime instrument reducing risk convictions resting factual error. concrete substance presumption innocence—that bedrock 'axiomatic elementary' principle whose 'enforcement lies foundation administration law.' 453, 403. As dissenters observed, we agree, accused severe disadvantage, disadvantage amounting lack fairness, could adjudged guilty imprisoned strength same suffice civil case.' N.Y.2d, 205, N.Y.S.2d, 422, N.E.2d, 259. 6 procedure cogent reasons. stake interest immense importance, both possibility lose certainty stigmatized conviction. Accordingly, society values good name freedom individual condemn commission guilt. 1342: 'There always litigation margin error, representing error factfinding, parties take account. Where party transcending value—as defendant liberty—this reduced placing other burden persuading factfinder commands no shall borne convincing To end, indispensable, 'impresses necessity reaching subjective certitude facts issue.' Dorsen & Rezneck, Re Future Juvenile Law, Law Quarterly, 4, 7 Moreover, use indispensable command respect confidence community applications law. critical moral force diluted leaves people innocent being condemned. important going ordinary affairs government cannot adjudge offense proper utmost certainty. 8 Lest remain constitutional stature standard, explicitly hold protects against except charged. II turn juveniles, like adults, they violation considerations demand extreme caution factfinding protect adult apply well child. do find contrary arguments Appeals, rendered untenable much reasoning court sustain 744(b). indicated adjudication 'is 'conviction' (§ 781); affects right privilege, including public office obtain license 782); cloak protective confidentiality thrown around proceedings (§§ 783 784).' 200, 417—418, 255—256. further: 'The status crime; criminal. There is, hence, deprivation statutory provision (challenged appellant) *.' 203, 420, 257. effect distinguished here what called "civil' label-of-convenience attached proceedings.' 50, 1455. But distinction reason holding inapplicable proceeding. 50—51, 1455, 1456. attempted justify related ground designed 'not punish, save child.' 197, 415, 254. Again, however, justification. 27, 1443. clear decision labels intentions themselves obviate need safeguards courts, '(a) proceeding where issue child will subjected loss comparable seriousness felony prosecution.' 36, 1448. 10 Nor perceive merit argument afford juveniles destruction beneficial aspects process.4 Use disturb York's policies finding violated conviction, deprive rights, confidential. informality, flexibility, speed takes place. And opportunity post-adjudicatory wide-ranging review child's social history individualized treatment unimpaired. Similarly, procedures distinctive employed prior hearing. 11 ovserved best necessarily, probably, promoted wins particular inquiry bring court.' 199, 417, 255. true, course, engaging general course conduct inimical welfare calls judicial intervention. intervention form subjecting stigma law5 institutional confinement insufficient were adult. 12 conclude, concluded applied observance 'will compel States abandon displace substantive benefits process.' 21, 1440. 13 Finally, reject Appeals' suggestion event, only 'tenuous difference' between standards. singularly unpersuasive. very case, judge's ability distinguish two standards enabled make conceded Indeed, action evidences accuracy observation commentators 'the test susceptible misinterpretation merely perform abstract weighing order determine side produced greater quantum, regard mind truth proposition asserted.' 26—27.6 III 14 sum, those Gault—notice charges, counsel, confrontation examination, privilege self-incrimination. therefore hold, agreement Chief Judge Fuld dissent 'that, stealing renders liable six years, then, matter doubt.' 207, 423, 260. Reversed. HARLAN, concurring. 17 one, I daresay, contend trials federal limitations. Differences existed, members protections apply. See present draws validity statute permits delinquency, founded conduct, rigorous tried While am full offends fairness Amendment, constrained add something my Brother written lest true nature problem presented become obscured impact systems holds today exaggerated. 19 Professor discussing various attempts courts define how convinced wryly observed: yet invented discovered mode measurement intensity human belief. Hence can successful method communicating intelligibly sound selfanalysis one's belief,' 325 1940).1 Notwithstanding Wigmore's skepticism, us choice difference: below forthrightly believed stole complainant's though used alternative vague sure guide decisionmaking, variety does, think, reflect assessment comparative costs erroneous determinations.2 21 explain why think so, begin stating propositions, neither believe fairly disputed. First, dispute earlier acquire unassailably accurate knowledge happened. Instead, fact-finder belief probably belief—the given actually occurred—can, vary. regard, represents attempt instruct thinks correctness conclusions type adjudication. phrases 'preponderance evidence' 'proof quantitatively imprecise, communicate finder different notions expected conclusions. 22 A second proposition, really nothing more corollary first, sometimes, despite efforts, wrong lawsuit parties, difference ways. favor plaintiff warrant defendant. analogue man. On hand, plaintiff's favor. 23 influences relative frequency these types outcomes. If, rather smaller errors freeing persons, far convicting innocent. Because outcomes, kind should, rational world, disutility each. When makes assessment, opposed becomes apparent. suit private money damages, view serious verdict defendant's peculiarly appropriate for, explained most sensibly,3 simply requires 'to nonexistence (he) persuade (judge) fact's existence.'4 convincting equivalent acquitting someone guilty. Brennan wrote 1341—1342, (1958): 27 context, bottomed value worse let go free. nearly complete long-standing acceptance expression fairness,5 stringent litigation. 28 assesses consequences youth crime, while identical differences support proof. paramount here, exposes personal through state-imposed away home, family, friends. And, second, determination, least, stigmatizes definition crime.6 (and possibly himself) letting free, declare delinquent. agree trial. 29 wish emphasize, separate 65, 1463, automatic congruence imposed cases.7 great view, strictures jeopardize State's purpose' creating id., 72, 1467. worth emphasizing (1) interfere worthy goal rehabilitating juvenile, (2) significant 'criminal' delinquent, (3) adjudications significantly time consuming, rigid. Today's confident With observations, join Court's reservations Gault. BURGER, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 32 rests entirely assumption 'criminal prosecutions,' hence derives holdings, today's holding, steps eroding traditional courts. original concept system provide benevolent formal means dealing special often sensitive problems youthful offenders. Since overcome legislative area, further straitjacketing already overly restricted system. What needs trappings legal formalism; breathing room flexibility survive, survive repeated assaults 33 Much attitude manifested holdings field protest inadequate staffs facilities; 'burn down stable get rid mice.' distressing growth combined literal breakdown seen functioned atmosphere judges crushed avalanche cases. My hope spell end generously conceived program compassionate intended mitigate rigors trauma exposing offenders court; each step turns clock back pre-juvenile-court era. manifestation progress transform accomplishing. response own having abolished. 35 BLACK, 36 majority states 'many required.' Ante, 362. joined opinions, dissenting 802, 1009, (1952). never clearly held, either impliedly commanded Constitution. Bill Rights, fully applicable Adamson California, 332 46, 71—75, 67 1672, 1686—1688, 91 1903 (1947) opinion), express language things, counsel trials, indictment, informed charges him.1 places Constitution jury,2 nowhere document statement thus goes detail out have, power subtract set forth Founders. realize easier substitute judges' ideas 'fairness' prescribed surrender itself guide, fair, decent, right. That old 'shock-the-conscience' relying on, words enough revealed reference 'fair failure amounts 'lack fairness.' 359, 363. again, prefer put faith rely shifting, day-to-day judges. 37 Our 'deprived liberty, property, law.'3 four words—due law—have center substantial debate years. Chambers Florida, 309 227, 235—236, n. 8, 60 472, 476—477, 84 716 (1940). Some vague. possible ambiguity disappears phrase viewed light meaning written. 38 'Due law' originally shorthand governmental according 'law land' existed proceedings. Both derived laws England traditionally regarded thing. Magna Charta provided that: 'No Freeman taken, imprisoned, disseised Freehold, Liberties, Customs, outlawed, exiled, otherwise destroyed; nor pass him, lawful Judgment Peers, Land.'4 Later English statutes reinforced confirmed basic freedoms. 1350 declared 'it contained Great Charter Franchises none Custom, Land *.'5 Four later another '(t)hat Man Estate Condition be, Tenement, taken disinherited, Death, brought Answer Law.'6 1363 'that freehold, law.'7 41 Drawing sources, Lord Coke, 1642, synonymous 'by land.'8 One earliest involve interpretation Fifth '(t)he words, law,' undoubtedly convey Charta.' Murray's Lessee Hoboken Improv. Co., How. 272, 276, 372 (1856). 42 unmistakably land,' consistently defined frequently continue misconceive correct phrase. Lessee, Curtis, speaking stated: 43 constitution contains description processes allow forbid. ascertain process. manifest left enact devised. article restraint executive powers government, so construed leave congress mere will. principles, resort enacted congress, process? answer twofold. examine itself, conflict provisions. If look settled usages modes existing England, emigration ancestors, shown unsuited political condition acted after settlement country.' 276—277.9 44 Twining Jersey, 211 78, 14, 53 97 (1908), Moody, again reaffirmed meant went modify Curtis' He 45 'First. ascertained examination country. 46 'Second. follow, emigration, country practiced element first half seventeenth century fastened jurisprudence straight-jacket, unloosed amendment. 47 'Third. But, change disregards action, relation citizen right, guard arbitrary government.' 100—101, 20.10 48 kernel 'natural process' notion frees limits sets loose unconstitutional 'shocks conscience,' deprives 'fundamental fairness,' violates 'implicit Rochin 342 165, 172, 209, 210, 183 Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 149, 152, 82 288 (1937). approach deciding so-called 'procedural' questions, evolved device easily invoked invalid 'substantive' sufficiently shock consciences five e.g., Lochner York, 198 45, 539, 49 937 (1905); Coppage Kansas, 236 240, 59 441 (1915); Burns Baking Co. Bryan, 264 504, 412, 68 813 (1924); Griswold 381 479, 85 1678, 510 (1965). length views completely odds limited arrogation unlimited authority judiciary supported 68, 1684, opinion); 507, 1694, (1965) Curtis Moody gave unjustifiably broad interpretation. For me proceed land'—that provisions interpreted decisions. Clause, Amendments, provisions, governments bound law.11 seem degrading niggardly part criticism fails note historical importance virtual revolution nations achieved forming beginning abundantly actions affecting property 50 ancestors struggled constitution, consolidating place threads nation. They almost succeeded attempt,12 Revolution able achieve longsought goal. struggle document, certain governed law, fiat power. ancestors' known tyranny kings rule was, insure Founders Carta meaningful decisions blanket govern institution ignored invoke. assumes law—state federal—unconstitutional majority's decent society, Nation ceases ultimately judges.' 51 been, argued strikes idea fairness' furthers thrust Rights protecting freedom. ignores perhaps people—the participate self-government society. Federal up powers, 'necessary proper' carry purpose governing Nation, exercised limitations restrained accordance decency. Any legislature presumably passes help hinder whole. people, elected representatives, making determinations, preserves just freedoms preserved Rights. denied passed chosen conflicts necessarily implied 52 admit strong, persuasive cases—and well—but Congress quite trials. universally States. adhere Turner 398, 430, 642, 610 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting). when, State duly constituted branch decides unconstitutional, persons treated land.' decision, invalidates it. Thus, 'rests limitations.' 'we concerned pre-judicial stages direct attention post-adjudicative 1436. distinct preliminary phase stage. N.Y. §§ 731—749. intimate children 'in supervision.' 711, 712, 742—745. consider occasion Equal Protection denial ruling appears following portion transcript: Counsel: 'Your Honor evidence.' Court: 'Well, convinces me.' 'It's Your Honor.' 'That says is.' Accord, Dennis M., 70 Cal.2d 444, Cal.Rptr. 450 P.2d 296 (1969); Ellis, A.2d 789 (D.C.Ct.App. 1969); Arenas, Or. 215, 453 915 (Or.1969); Santana, 444 S.W.2d 614 (Texas 1969). Contra. Costanzo, 395 F.2d (C.A.4th Cir. 1968); Urbasek, Ill.2d 535, N.E.2d (1967); Jones Commonwealth, 185 Va. 335, S.E.2d (1946); N.D.Cent.Code 27—20—29(2) (Supp. Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 22—3—6(1) Md.Ann.Code, Art. 26, 70—18(a) N.J.Ct.Rule 6:9(1)(f) Wash.Sup.Ct., Juv.Ct.Rule 4.4(b) cf. Agler, Ohio St.2d 70, 249 808 Legislative adoption reasonabledoubt urged National Conference Commissioners Uniform Laws Children's Bureau Department Health, Education, Welfare's Social Rehabilitation Service. 29(b) (1968); Bureau, Service, Education Welfare, Guide Drafting Acts 32(c) proposal Council Crime Delinquency 'clear convincing' adopted. Model Rules Courts, Rule p. 57 generally Cohen, Standard Proof Proceedings: Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Mich.L.Rev. 567 (1970). Appellee, apparently concedes Brief, page states: 'A unconstitutionally denies resulted quantum proof.' '(T)he superior others guilt, concern court. difficult objectives give rise legitimate adult.' comprehensive effective prevent disclosure finding, danger stigma. 'claim secrecy rhetoric reality.' 24, 1442. Compare rejection deportation proceedings, ruled allegations 'clear, unequivocal, Woodby Immigration Naturalization 385 285, 483, 362 (1966). tantamount since lead 'drastic deprivations,' impermissible 'banished applies negligence Ibid. Paulsen, Courts Legacy '67, Ind.L.J. 527, 551—552 interesting analysis Kaplan, Decision Theory Factfinding Process, Stan.L.Rev. 1065, 1071—1077 criticized, justifiably read asking weigh objective sense quantity submitted decide believes Maguire, Common Sense 180 (1947). F. James, Civil Procedure 250—251 (1965); E. Morgan, Problems Under Anglo-American System Litigation 84—85 (1956). BLACK argues apart prohibitions eight amendments, spelled legislature—no unfair—passes muster Clause. bottoms claims demonstrates land'; enactment, ipso facto, land; incorporates refrain expressing continued bafflement BLACK'S insistence embody liberty. His thesis flies face reflected unbroken line impose restraints adopt citizens, see, cited Poe Ullman, 367 497, 522, 539—545, 81 1752, 1765, 1774—1778, 989 (1961); 171, 1458, 1459, uncontroverted scholarly research (notwithstanding H. Flack, Adoption (1908)), respecting intendment Fairman, Does Incorporate Rights? Original Understanding, (1949). respect, establishing statute, met How, (1856), 'distress warrant' issued Solicitor Treasury collect taxes offended wrote: denied. conformity Congress. law?' will.' 276. (Emphasis supplied.) amended 'juvenile delinquent,' i.e., 'who crime,' N.Y.Family (1963), '(p)erson supervision' (PINS) habitual truant incorrigible, ungovernable habitually disobedient control parent authority.' PINS category avoid delinquent' act. Committee report "Juvenile term disapproval. Domestic Relations aware officials employers learn delinquency.' N.Y.Jt. Reorganization, pt. (1962). police differ categories 7—9. involved here. agreed adequate notice 'nature terms' proceedings; retain obligation indigents confined'; record 'adequate permit review.' Unlike majority, thought unnecessary additional self-incrimination, confrontation, cross-examination. Amdts. V, VI, III, cl. 3; Amdt. limitation imposes restriction Hen. 3, c. (1225). appeared signed King John 1215. Edw. Stat. 5, IV. III. XVIII. Coke's Institutes, Second Part, (1st 1642). Hudson, Cranch 32, 259 (1812), held Iredell Calder Bull, Dall. 386, 648 (1798). standing alone, follows entire section illuminated surrounding adoption. 92—123, 1696—1711. Harlan continues insist shows incorporate 540, 1775, (1961) 500, 1690 (concurring judgment); ante, 372-373, 5. understand conclusion. repeatedly Harlan, surveys concludes amendment 'scholarly' writing, substantially documents Fairman proposing '(t)o (the Amendments) binding upon, to, States.' 95 States: Gitlow 268 652, 625, 1138 (1925), Cantwell 310 296, 900, 1213 (1940), Edwards South Carolina, 229, 83 680, 697 (1963); Fourth Mapp Ohio, 643, 1081 Chicago B. Q.R. Chicago, 166 226, 581, 979 (1897), Malloy Hogan, 378 1489, 653 (1964), Benton Maryland, 784, 89 2056, 707 Sixth Gideon Wainwright, 792, 799 Pointer Texas, 380 400, 923 (1965), Klopfer North 386 213, 988, (1967), Eighth Robinson 370 660, 1417, 758 indicates Flack's fared better Fairman's 'uncontroverted' scholarship. Frank, Levellers (1955).

Category: 1