In re Winship
E944959
In re Winship is a landmark 1970 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| In re Winship canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11752653 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: In re Winship Context triple: [Burger Court, notableCase, In re Winship]
-
A.
Roper v. Simmons
Roper v. Simmons is a landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by individuals under the age of 18.
-
B.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
C.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
D.
Graham v. Florida
Graham v. Florida is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
-
E.
Agostini v. Felton
Agostini v. Felton is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that reshaped Establishment Clause doctrine by allowing public school teachers to provide remedial instruction in religious schools under certain safeguards.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: In re Winship Target entity description: In re Winship is a landmark 1970 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
-
A.
Roper v. Simmons
Roper v. Simmons is a landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held it unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by individuals under the age of 18.
-
B.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
-
C.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
D.
Graham v. Florida
Graham v. Florida is a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
-
E.
Agostini v. Felton
Agostini v. Felton is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that reshaped Establishment Clause doctrine by allowing public school teachers to provide remedial instruction in religious schools under certain safeguards.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark decision ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
adjudicatory hearings in juvenile court
ⓘ
juvenile delinquency proceedings ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
ⓘ
linked to:
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases on due process ⓘ
linked to:
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases on juvenile law ⓘ |
| citation | 397 U.S. 358 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
|
| countryOfOrigin |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1970-03-31 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
Justice Hugo L. Black ⓘ
linked to:
Hugo L. Black
Justice Potter Stewart ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
Justice Warren E. Burger ⓘ
linked to:
Warren E. Burger
|
| fullName | In re Winship ⓘ |
| holding |
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged in juvenile delinquency proceedings
ⓘ
The reasonable-doubt standard applies to adjudicatory stages of juvenile delinquency proceedings ⓘ |
| impact |
Established that juveniles facing delinquency adjudications are entitled to the same standard of proof as adults in criminal prosecutions
ⓘ
Strengthened procedural due process protections in juvenile courts ⓘ |
| issue | Whether the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency proceedings ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice Earl Warren
ⓘ
linked to:
Earl Warren
Justice Byron R. White ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice John M. Harlan II ⓘ
linked to:
John M. Harlan II
Justice Potter Stewart ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
linked to:
Thurgood Marshall
Justice William O. Douglas ⓘ
linked to:
William O. Douglas
|
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalSubject |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ juvenile justice ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
ⓘ
linked to:
William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| originatingJurisdiction | New York ⓘ |
| overruledOrModifiedPriorStandard | preponderance of the evidence standard in juvenile delinquency adjudications ⓘ |
| pageInUnitedStatesReports | 358 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Samuel Winship ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | binding on state courts ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
In re Gault
ⓘ
Mullaney v. Wilbur ⓘ Patterson v. New York ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
burden of proof
ⓘ
presumption of innocence ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of New York
ⓘ
linked to:
New York State
|
| standardOfProofEstablished | beyond a reasonable doubt ⓘ |
| volumeOfUnitedStatesReports | 397 ⓘ |
| vote |
5-3 on applying the reasonable-doubt standard to juvenile delinquency adjudications
ⓘ
8-1 on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases generally ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1970 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: In re Winship Description of subject: In re Winship is a landmark 1970 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.