In re Winship

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=In re Winship
ArgueDate=January 20
ArgueYear=1970
DecideDate=March 31
DecideYear=1970
FullName=In the Matter of Samuel Winship, Appellant
USVol=397
USPage=358
Citation=90 S. Ct. 1068; 25 L. Ed. 2d 368; 51 O.O.2d 323
Prior=91 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1968), "aff'd", 247 N.E.2d. 253 (N.Y. 1969).
Subsequent=
Holding=The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires that every element of a criminal offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
SCOTUS=1969b
Majority=Brennan
JoinMajority=Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall
Concurrence=Harlan
Dissent=Burger
JoinDissent=Stewart
Dissent2=Black
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. XIV

"In re Winship", 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that when a juvenile is charged with an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The case has come to stand for a broader proposition, however, which is that in "any" criminal prosecution, every essential element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., "Apprendi v. New Jersey", 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000); "Sullivan v. Louisiana", 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993).

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 397