McKeiver v Pennsylvania

State supreme courts and The United States Supreme Court had been on a roll in extending juvenile
protective rights upon arrest. However, The High Court did not provide carte blanch. McKeiver v
Pennsylvania put on the brakes where the extension of juvenile rights was concerned.
Please read McKeiver v Pennsylvania and conduct a legal brief. A legal brief requires the following: the
case title, statement of the issue of the case, the details of the case background, and the way in which the
court ruled, with an explanation supporting that ruling.
Upon the conclusion of this legal brief, take a stand on the final ruling of the case. Do you agree or
disagree with the decision made by The High Court?

Statement of Factuals:

The case is a mix of cases of North Carolina and Pennsylvania. For the Pennsylvania instances, a teenager was accused of assaulting an officer, larceny, theft and receiving stolen items. For the North Carolina cases, students ranging between 11 and 15 were accused of a variety of crimes, including disorderly behavior in connection with protests that relate to racism (Baharanyi and Hertz, 2018,). The trials were conducted in juvenile court because the defendants were minors. The minors were not allowed the right to a jury trial in the juvenile court. For North Carolina, the cases were held in sessions which were closed for public viewing. The juveniles all appealed the denial of jury trials.

The Case’s Background:

The case of North Carolina, the State Court of Appeals confirmed appellants’ refusal to hold jury trials. The decision was also confirmed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. In Pennsylvania The State Supreme Court established that there was no constitutionally-based right to the jury in the juvenile court. In the United States, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of one of the States (DeMatteo and others .,2022).