Winship was decided by the Burger Court in 1970, Docket number 778. The case involves a twelve-year-old boy, Samuel Winship, who was arrested for stealing $112 from a woman's locker. Section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act provided that determination of a juvenile's guilt differs from an adult defendant, requiring only a "preponderance of evidence" and not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Based on the "preponderance of evidence" clause, the Family Court initially found Winship guilty, "despite acknowledging that the evidence did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," ("In Re Winship"). Winship appealed, and the appeal was rejected and later sent to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and deemed "preponderance of evidence" methods unconstitutional based primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

The outcome of the case strengthens the burden of proof requirements for all criminal cases, juvenile or not. However, juvenile defendants are particularly influenced by this decision. The decision particularly applies to acts that would be considered crimes if the defendant were an adult. Although juveniles are the principle recipients of the outcome, In Re Winship generally strengthens the concept of burden of proof, and upholds the inherent values in both the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard as well as the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process. The decision ultimately centers on the "reasonable doubt standard" as being "indispensible to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law," ("In Re Winship").

The Supreme Court decision underscores the unnecessary nebulous nature of the "preponderance of evidence" clause that had tainted the original Family Court case, noting that such "abstract weighing of the evidence" is "susceptible to misinterpretation," ("In Re Winship"). The justices also write that the "reasonable doubt" standard "plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error," ("In Re Winship"). Given that juveniles are frequently tried for acts that would be considered crimes, and that those acts might warrant trial as adult and resulting in incarceration, the enforcement of due process and the upholding of burden of proof standards are critical.

References

"In Re Winship." Justia. Retrieved online: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/case.html