Take a quick interactive quiz on the concepts in In re Winship Case Brief: Summary, Ruling & Significance or print the worksheet to practice offline. Facts: Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a crime were the child an adult. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Contributor Names Brennan, William J., Jr. (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author) The first one was that the court underscored the 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. In the case In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. Decided March 31, 1970. Docket no. Affects of the case Considering the case of In Re Winship and In Re Gault, juveniles are not always afforded the punishment as adults under the Due Process Clause. The family court judge acknowledged that the proof against the boy might not . A summary and case brief of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. ... Gault rendered untenable much of the reasoning relied upon by that court to sustain the constitutionality of § 744(b). Argued January 20, 1970. Samuel Winship was a twelve-year-old boy who had stolen $112 from a woman's pocketbook. The Court of Appeals indicated that a delinquency adjudication of Larceny." IN RE WINSHIP , 397 U.S. 358 (1970) Argued Jan. 20, 1970. A preponderance of evidence found that Winship (D), a 12-year old boy, committed an act that if committed by an adult would have been a crime, thus justifying the juvenile delinquency he was charged with. The second case, Breed v. Decided. in re winship Relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by § 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, a New York Family Court judge found that appellant, then a 12-year-old boy, had committed an act that "if done by an adult, would constitute the crime . The family court adjudged the minor a delinquent, and was affirmed in a memorandum decision. After Mrs. Cook filed a complaint, Gault and a friend, Ronald Lewis, were arrested and taken to the Children’s Detention Home. 778. ": 17 It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case). . . 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a crime were the child an adult. This case presents the single, narrow question whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt Now, Mr. Justice Marshall has suggested that the mere fact that this starts off because of an act which would constitute a crime, everything flows to it. Mar 31, 1970. Winship, in Re. In In re Winship, twelve-year-old Samuel Winship was charged with delinquency for allegedly entering a locker and stealing $112 from a woman’s pocketbook, a crime that would constitute larceny if committed by an adult. Winship addressed one of these and, in the process, raised significant jurisprudential questions about the nature of due process in a constitutional system. No. U.S. 358 (1970) Brief Fact Summary. At age twelve, Samuel Winship was arrested and charged as a juvenile delinquent for breaking into a woman's locker and stealing $112 from her pocketbook. Summary of In re Winship Supreme court decision. Decided by Burger Court . A jury trial, they reasoned, would severely intrude on the informal nature of the juvenile court.