D) In re Stanford. Winship (D) contended that a finding such as this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held juveniles, like adults, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when they are charged with violation of a criminal law. In In re Winship, twelve-year-old Samuel Winship was charged with delinquency for allegedly entering a locker and stealing $112 from a woman’s pocketbook, a crime that would constitute larceny if committed by an adult.

C) In re Winship. The case of In re Winship resulted in the standard of: A) beyond a reasonable doubt. D) the weight of the evidence.

Among the essentials of due process and fair treatment required during the adjudicatory stage when a juvenile is charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In reaching its decision, the Court clarified that every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which a defendant is charged must be proven in accordance with the standard. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The key Supreme Court case where the standard of proof for juvenile court proceedings was established was: A) In re Gault. The family court judge acknowledged that the proof against the boy might not B) clear and convincing evidence. C) a preponderance of evidence. B) In re Myron.