McKeiver v. Pennsylvania

1971-06-28

Headline: Court rules juvenile delinquency hearings need not include jury trials, upholding judge-only adjudications and leaving each state free to decide whether juveniles get juries.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to provide jury trials in the adjudicative phase of juvenile delinquency proceedings, leaving the choice to state law and practice.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to keep judge-only juvenile adjudications without juries.
Permits varied state practices on jury use in juvenile courts.
Public exclusion of hearings may change protections available to juveniles.

Topics: juvenile justice, jury trials, due process, state courts, youth detention

Summary

Background

Two groups of young people in Pennsylvania and North Carolina challenged denials of jury trials in their juvenile delinquency hearings. In Pennsylvania two teenage boys were adjudged delinquent after judge-only hearings. In North Carolina about 45 Black children were charged after demonstrations; the trial judge excluded the general public and denied jury requests. The Court accepted review to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a jury in the adjudicative part of a juvenile proceeding.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed earlier decisions that extended some criminal protections to juveniles but declined to apply every adult criminal right automatically. The plurality said a jury is not the only reliable factfinder, noted many States already proceed without juries, and worried that forcing jury trials would disrupt the juvenile system’s informal and rehabilitative goals. Considering these factors and national practice, the Court concluded the Due Process Clause does not compel jury trials in juvenile adjudications and affirmed the lower courts’ results.

Real world impact

The decision leaves to each State whether juvenile adjudications will use juries. Many States by statute deny juries while others permit them, so local procedures will continue to vary. Judges retain authority to hold judge-only hearings, and States remain free to add jury trials if they choose.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices White and Harlan joined the result and stressed differences between juvenile and criminal systems. Justice Brennan would have reversed the North Carolina cases because the public was excluded. Justice Douglas (joined by Black and Marshall) dissented, arguing juveniles facing possible confinement should get jury trials.