Page 69 - Juvenile Practice is not Child's Play

In re Winship

In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), a New York Family Court judge relied on a
preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, in finding that the

child, a 12-year-old boy, had committed a crime that would be considered a larceny if adjudicated in adult court. The
New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the United States Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme
Court held that youths, like adults, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when they are

charged with violation of a criminal law.

Fare v. Michael C.

In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1979), Michael C. ("the child") was 16 years old and
on probation when he was implicated in a murder. He was advised of his Miranda rights and asked if his probation
officer could be present during the interrogation, but the police refused. He then agreed to talk to the police without an
attorney and subsequently incriminated himself in the murder. The probation department then moved to make the

child a ward of the state based on his incriminating statements. The child moved to suppress the statements but the trial
court denied the motion. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that statements had been made in violation
of the child’s Fifth 43 Amendment right against self-incrimination. Specifically, the California Supreme Court held that

the child’s request for his probation officer constituted a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights in the same
way that a request for an attorney was found to be. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the child’s
request for his probation officer was not a per se invocation of his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights. The Court went
on to hold that "whether the statements obtained during subsequent interrogation of a juvenile who has asked to see his

probation officer, but who has not asked to consult an attorney or expressly asserted his right to remain silent, are
admissible on the basis of waiver remains a question to be resolved on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
interrogation." 442 U.S. 707,728 (1979). The court went on to conclude that, based on the records before it, the

statements obtained by the police were proper and their admission was correct.