
The juvenile court system works very differently from the adult criminal court. Adult criminal proceedings focus on punishing criminal acts. Juvenile court proceedings, on the other hand, aim to rehabilitate young people. This key difference shapes how juvenile cases are handled from start to finish.
In juvenile proceedings, there's no jury trial like in adult criminal court. A judge makes all decisions about guilt and consequences. The proceedings are less formal, often described as an informal protective proceeding, and usually closed to the public. Most juvenile records get sealed to protect the child's future. These differences exist because the juvenile justice system believes young people deserve another chance, presenting an idealistic prospect for rehabilitation.
The stakes in juvenile court remain high even without a jury trial. A finding of guilt can affect education, job options, and housing opportunities. The juvenile justice system was created separate from the adult system because children and teens are still developing. While this creates some benefits, it also means juveniles aren't entitled to the same due process rights as adult defendants facing criminal charges. However, there's always the possibility of achieving a positive outcome with the right legal support.

In the important case McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution doesn't require jury trials in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Court found that jury trials might harm the informal protective nature of juvenile court proceedings. They worried jury trials would make the juvenile court too much like adult criminal court.
The Supreme Court recognized that while the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in criminal prosecutions, juvenile proceedings aren't technically "criminal" cases. Instead, they're considered "civil" cases aimed at helping rather than punishing. This distinction lets the Court deny juveniles the right to a jury while still following constitutional principles.
The justices were concerned that juries would turn juvenile proceedings into mini-adult criminal trials. They feared this would undermine the juvenile justice system's goal of rehabilitation. The due process clause of the Constitution allows for this different treatment of juveniles.
Following the Supreme Court's guidance, California doesn't give juvenile defendants the right to trial by jury, even for serious offenses. A judge alone decides if the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile committed the alleged crime. This standard of proof is the same as in adult criminal proceedings.
In rare cases, such as when a juvenile might be transferred to adult court through a "fitness hearing," some jury-related rights may apply. If a case moves to adult criminal court, then all protections of adult criminal proceedings—including the right to a jury—would apply to the juvenile defendant.
California courts have repeatedly upheld this approach. The Juvenile Law Center and other advocacy groups sometimes challenge this system. They argue jury trials would better protect young defendants' rights. However, the current system remains firmly in place across most states, including California.

Your child has the right to an attorney throughout juvenile court proceedings. If you can't afford a lawyer, the Court will appoint one. We strongly suggest hiring an attorney who specializes in juvenile cases. Public defenders often have many cases and limited time. Private counsel can focus more on building a strong defense for your child.
Juveniles also have the right to self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. This protection matters because police can sometimes question minors without parents present. Young people often don't fully understand their rights. They may feel pressure to answer questions that could hurt their case.
The right to confront witnesses is another key protection. This means your child's defense can challenge the prosecution's evidence and question those making accusations. Good cross-examination often reveals weak points in the case that the judge might otherwise miss.
The burden of proof in juvenile cases matches adult criminal proceedings. Prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest standard in our legal system. This high standard helps protect innocent juveniles from wrongful findings of delinquency based on weak evidence.

latest News
A federal jury in the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, on Thursday, March 26, 2015, acquitted two defendants, Deborah Loudermilk and Buena Marshall, of mail fraud charges arising from allegations that they participated in a 2006 mortgage fraud scheme. In the prosecution of the case, the government presented 26...
Being falsely accused of domestic violence is terrifying and confusing. It can affect your reputation, job, and even your relationship with your children. These accusations can lead to arrest, court hearings, and the risk of a permanent criminal record. Many people feel overwhelmed and unsure of what to do next....
A conviction for domestic violence can lead to surprising and far-reaching life changes. Even after the court process ends, the long-term consequences stay with you. You could lose your job, face restrictions at home, and even risk losing custody of your children. In California, the penalties for domestic violence offenses...
Contact us now for a
free consultation
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
1970 Broadway, Suite 1145
Oakland, CA 94612
2570 N 1st Street, 2nd Floor
San Jose, CA 95131
533 Airport Blvd, Suite 400
Burlingame, CA 94010
6200 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite
300 Pleasanton, CA 94588
370 Convention Way Suite 316
Redwood City, CA 94063
500 Capitol
Mall Sacramento, CA 95814