McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
1971 United States Supreme Court case
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that juveniles in juvenile criminal proceedings were not entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. The Court's plurality opinion left the precise reasoning for the decision unclear.
Background
Joseph McKeiver and Edward Terry were teenagers charged with acts of robbery, theft, assault, and escape. Both were denied a request for a jury trial at the Juvenile Court of Philadelphia. A state Superior Court affirmed the order and, after combining their separate cases into one case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision stating that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for juveniles. In similar cases, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of North Carolina both affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no constitutional requirement for a jury trial for juvenile defendants.
Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
Although the right to a jury trial is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in these cases states may, and some do, employ jury trials in juvenile proceedings if they wish to do so. Kansas is the first state in the U.S. to articulate that the right should be extended to juveniles under its state constitution.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “McKeiver v. Pennsylvania” as 1971 United States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 1971 United States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6801764. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1971.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “McKeiver v. Pennsylvania”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow McKeiver v. Pennsylvania primary sources, McKeiver v. Pennsylvania archive and McKeiver research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “McKeiver v. Pennsylvania”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “McKeiver v. Pennsylvania” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.