Mckeiver v pennsylvania. McKeiver V. Pennsylvania 2019-01-21

Mckeiver v pennsylvania Rating: 6,4/10 1446 reviews

Law School Case Briefs

mckeiver v pennsylvania

His request for a jury trial was denied and his case was heard by Judge Theodore S. The generally applicable statute, Pa. The Pennsylvania juveniles' basic argument is that they were tried in proceedings 'substantially similar to a criminal trial. Juries are not required, and have not been, for example, in equity cases, in workmen's compensation, in probate, or in deportation cases. Held: A trial by jury is not constitutionally required in the adjudicative phase of a state juvenile court delinquency proceeding. On the other hand, a concern precisely to the opposite effect was expressed by two dissenters in Winship.

Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

mckeiver v pennsylvania

§ 110—24 1966 , in force at the time of these trials, appears on its face to permit but not require such exclusion, as does identical language in the present statute, N. They either refused or left the roadway and immediately returned. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed without opinion. § 571-41 1968 ; Idaho Code § 16-1813 Supp. In re McKeiver, 215 Pa. The Court, however, has not yet said that all rights constitutionally assured to an adult accused of crime also are to be enforced or made available to the juvenile in his delinquency proceeding.

Next

Law School Case Briefs

mckeiver v pennsylvania

Even when juveniles are not incarcerated with adults the situation may be no better. Indeed, the Court specifically has refrained from going that far: 'We do not mean by this to indicate that the hearing to be held must conform with all of the requirements of a criminal trial or even of the usual administrative hearing; but we do hold that the hearing must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment. Such is this case, for behind the facade of delinquency is the crime of forgery. There is, of course, nothing to prevent a juvenile court judge, in a particular case where he feels the need, or when the need is demonstrated, from using an advisory Jury. Juries are not required, and have not been, for example, in equity cases, in workmen's compensation, in probate, or in deportation cases. Who- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania B. In 1968, 16-year-old Philadelphian Joseph McKeiver was charged with three felony counts.

Next

Joseph McKEIVER and Edward Terry, Appellants, v. State of PENNSYLVANIA. In re Barbara BURRUS et al., Petitioners.

mckeiver v pennsylvania

It was held that upon the facts there developed, the Due Process Clause barred the use of the confession. This money could be put towards a better use, which is why a balanced federal budget is essential. The evidence as to the juveniles other than Howard consisted solely of testimony of highway patrolmen. We must recognize, as the Court has recognized before, that the fond and idealistic hopes of the juvenile court proponents and early reformers of three generations ago have not been realized. But it has never been the practice to wholly exclude parents, relatives, and friends, or to refuse juveniles the benefit of counsel.

Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania Case Brief

mckeiver v pennsylvania

As for the juvenile trial issue, he writes: 'Whatever may be the classification of juvenile court proceedings, they are often conducted without admitting all the public. Other states certainly do provide jury trials to minors, however whether or not this is a state constitutional right or not is unclear. On a number of occasions, this Court has appointed counsel for a juvenile whose parents could not afford to retain private counsel, and where the parents' interests were in conflict with those of the child. These cases from Pennsylvania and North Carolina present the issue of the right to a jury trial for offenders charged in juvenile court and facing a possible incarceration until they reach their majority. Woods, 1968 , DeBacker's case was deemed an inappropriate one for resolution of the jury trial issue.

Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania :: 403 U.S. 528 (1971) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

mckeiver v pennsylvania

The courts considered many things, one being that all rights that are constitutionally assured to an adult are not assured to a juvenile. At McKeiver's hearing his counsel advised the court that he had never seen McKeiver before and 'was just in the middle of interviewing' him. Florida, , the Court saw no particular magic in a 12-man jury for a criminal case, thus revealing that even jury concepts themselves are not inflexible. He there concludes that 'the real traumatic' experience of incarceration without due process is 'the feeling of being deprived of basic rights. The Task Force Report, however, also said, id.


Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania/Opinion of the Court

mckeiver v pennsylvania

Terry was adjudged a delinquent on the charges. In the cases before us, the trial judge 'ordered the general public excluded from the hearing room and stated that only officers of the court, the juveniles, their parents or guardians, their attorney and witnesses would be present for the hearing,' In re Burrus, 4 N. The trial judge stated that the hearings were juvenile hearings, not criminal trials. Over counsel's objection, made in all except two of the cases, the general public was excluded. Finally, the arguments advanced by the juveniles here are, of course, the identical arguments that underlie the demand for the jury trial for criminal proceedings. But the guiding consideration for a court of law that deals with threatening conduct is nonetheless protection of the community. A request for a jury trial in each case was denied.

Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania :: 403 U.S. 528 (1971) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

mckeiver v pennsylvania

In In the matter of Reis, this Court indicated the inadequacies of the procedure under which our court operates. In theory it was to exercise its protective powers to bring an errant child back into the fold. A typical disposition in the juvenile court where delinquency is established may authorize confinement until age 21, but it will last no longer, and, within that period, will last only so long as his behavior demonstrates that he remains an unacceptable risk if returned to his family. If the accused believes that the judge has read an account of the facts submitted by the police or any other report prior to the adjudicatory hearing and that this may prove prejudicial, he can demand a jury and insure against such knowledge on the part of the trier of the facts. Ward, sitting as a juvenile court.

Next

Mckeiver V. Pennsylvania Essay Example

mckeiver v pennsylvania

United States, , concerned a 16-year-old charged with housebreaking, robbery, and rape in the District of Columbia. The court allowed him five minutes for the interview. It is at this stage that a judge's expertise is most important, and the granting of a jury trial will not prevent the judge from carrying out the basic philosophy of the juvenile court. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. North Carolina law either permits or requires exclusion of the general public from juvenile trials. Justice Roberts then concluded that such factors do inhere in the Pennsylvania juvenile system: 1 Although realizing that 'faith in the quality of the juvenile bench is not an entirely satisfactory substitute for due process,' id.

Next

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

mckeiver v pennsylvania

Nor is the purpose to make the juvenile delinquent an object lesson for others, whatever his own merits or demerits may be. . The imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not strengthen greatly, if at all, the fact-finding function, and would, contrarily, provide an attrition of the juvenile court's assumed ability to function in a unique manner. The Court fails to see the distinction between this waiver and the absolute waiver, to-wit, a guilty plea. In fact, a delinquent is generally viewed by employers, schools, the armed services -- by society generally -- as a criminal.


Next