{"id":641,"date":"2012-04-17T15:33:00","date_gmt":"2012-04-17T19:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=641"},"modified":"2012-04-19T14:29:55","modified_gmt":"2012-04-19T18:29:55","slug":"in-re-winship-397-u-s-358","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/","title":{"rendered":"In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Case Name: <\/strong>In Re Winship<br \/>\n<strong>Citation: <\/strong>397 U.S. 358 (1970)<\/p>\n<p><strong>Facts: <\/strong>A juvenile court found by a <em>preponderance of the evidence<\/em> that the defendant committed larceny.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue: <\/strong>Whether the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in the juvenile court was constitutionally permissible in a criminal case.<\/p>\n<p><strong>State\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The defendant\u2019s crime was \u201cpetty\u201d and his punishment was only that he was to be confined for one and a half years at a \u201ctraining school.\u201d The requirement of a reasonable doubt standard in lower crimes would burden district attorneys who already have an overly burdensome caseload.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Defendant\u2019s argument: <\/strong>The requirement that a criminal charge be established by proof <em>beyond a reasonable doubt<\/em> dates back to our early years as a Nation. The Due Process Clause implicitly requires this standard and lowers the risk of innocent individuals being convicted of crimes they did not commit.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong>The Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Reasoning: <\/strong>The reasonable doubt standard is \u201ca prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error.\u201d The standard is indispensable to the respect and confidence of the community in how criminal law is applied because every individual has confidence that his government will not \u201cadjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Name: In Re Winship Citation: 397 U.S. 358 (1970) Facts: A juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed larceny. Issue: Whether the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in the juvenile court was constitutionally permissible in a criminal case. State\u2019s argument: The defendant\u2019s crime was \u201cpetty\u201d and his &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[146,145],"tags":[128,150],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.1.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The reasonable doubt standard is \u201ca prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The reasonable doubt standard is \u201ca prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-04-17T19:33:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-04-19T18:29:55+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/\",\"name\":\"In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-04-17T19:33:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-04-19T18:29:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"The reasonable doubt standard is \\u201ca prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error.\\u201d\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/in-re-winship-397-u-s-358\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/641"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=641"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/641\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":694,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/641\/revisions\/694"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}