Also known as:juvenile adjudication · juvenile delinquency adjudication
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Findings from juvenile delinquency proceedings that establish a minor committed conduct constituting a crime if done by an adult. Such findings receive limited treatment under the evidence rules and may be used for impeachment only in criminal cases against a witness other than the accused when an adult conviction would be admissible and the evidence is necessary to determine guilt or innocence. Constitutional confrontation rights can require admission to expose bias even when ordinary rules would exclude the material.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
3
Cross-Examination for Bias
Jillian James stands trial for smuggling packages aboard a cruise ship. The prosecution's key witness, a sixteen-year-old cabin attendant, testifies that he saw Jillian hand him the contraband. Defense counsel seeks to ask the attendant on cross-examination about his recent juvenile adjudication for theft from passenger cabins and his current probation status to show a motive to curry favor with authorities. The court permits the questions because the Confrontation Clause requires an opportunity to expose bias when the witness's credibility is central to the case.
Probation Status Impeachment
June Jiang faces federal charges for bank fraud. The government's main witness is a seventeen-year-old teller who claims June coached him to override alerts. Counsel wants to question the teller about his juvenile adjudication for misusing customer accounts and his ongoing probation to demonstrate an incentive to please prosecutors. The trial court bars the inquiry outright, but the ruling violates the defendant's right to meaningful cross-examination on bias.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Study Supplements
Delinquency Finding Standard
Jordan Jenkins, age fourteen, faces a juvenile petition alleging conduct that would constitute felony tampering if committed by an adult. The state presents only blurry hallway footage and testimony that other students had access to the office. Jordan moves for a directed finding, arguing the evidence fails to meet the constitutionally required standard. The court must apply proof beyond a reasonable doubt to every element before it can adjudicate him delinquent. That adjudication finding is later subject to the limited impeachment rules.
In re Winship397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When may a criminal defendant cross-examine a prosecution witness about the witness's juvenile adjudication or probation status?+
A defendant must be permitted to inquire when the examination is necessary to show bias or otherwise attack credibility. Although the evidence rules generally limit use of juvenile adjudications, the Confrontation Clause overrides those limits in criminal cases where the witness is central to the prosecution and the inquiry targets a concrete motive to testify favorably.
Supporting sources
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 609(d) categorically bar all impeachment use of juvenile adjudications?+
No. The rule permits admission in a criminal case against a witness other than the accused if an adult conviction for the same offense would be admissible and admission is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence. Courts retain discretion to exclude the evidence when these conditions are not met.
Supporting sources
What burden of proof applies when the state seeks to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent for conduct that would be a felony if committed by an adult?+
Due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element. The constitutional standard attaches because the proceeding determines whether the juvenile committed criminal acts, regardless of the rehabilitative label attached to the juvenile court.
Supporting sources
397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970)Criminal Procedure
…because he has been found to be a delinquent, or (3) burden the juvenile courts with a procedural requirement that will make juvenile adjudications significantly more time consuming, or rigid. Today's decision simply requires a juvenile court judge to be more confident in his belief that the youth did the act with which he has been…