requires  “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court acknowledged that juvenile proceeding is designed 
to be more informal than adult proceedings, but if charged with a crime, the juvenile is granted protections 
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Winship expanded the constitutional protections established in Gault. 
Breed v. Jones
Breed v. Jones  (1975) 
5 
A 17-year-old boy named Gary Jones was charged with armed robbery and found guilty in a California 
juvenile court. At the dispositional hearing, the probation officer assigned to the case testified that Jones 
was not amenable to treatment. After the hearing, the court determined that Jones should subsequently 
be tried as an adult.  Jones’ lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus and argued that waiving the case to 
adult court after it was already adjudicated in juvenile court violated the double jeopardy clause in the 
Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, Jones had been placed in double jeopardy. This 
further formalized the juvenile court, however, The Court moved, “Giving respondent the constitutional 
protection against multiple trials in this context will not, as petitioner claims, diminish the flexibility and 
informality of juvenile-court proceedings.” 
6 
 
5. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975) 
6. 27 Raley, Gordon. 1995. "The JJDP Act: A Second Look." Juvenile Justice Journal, 2:11–18. 
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
401