In most states and U.S. territories, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not guaranteed for juveniles, or those who are under 18 and are subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court. In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles did not have the constitutional right to a trial by jury; they ruled this because the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” did not apply to juvenile court proceedings, as they are not considered “criminal prosecutions”. The context of this case revolves around multiple juveniles in Pennsylvania and North Carolina who were tried in juvenile delinquency courts. They argued that because their sentencing resulted in “loss of liberty”, juveniles should be given the same constitutional right to trial by jury that adults have.
The specific criteria that juvenile cases must meet to have the option of a trial by jury, in most states, require that the crime for which the juvenile is tried is severe enough to be comparable to an adult sentencing.
The following map shows each state’s laws on Juvenile’s access to jury trials.
- States highlighted in Green have a statute providing unconditional jury trial access for juveniles. Click the state to view the statute.
- States highlighted in Yellow have a statute providing conditional access to jury trials for juveniles. Click the state and scroll down to read more about the conditions.
- States highlighted in Red do not give juveniles a right to a jury trial.
Why Juveniles Should have Access to Jury Trials
At NYRA, we believe that all juveniles facing charges, regardless of situation or crime, should have access to a jury trial, if they would want one. Extending jury trial rights to juveniles acknowledges that young people are rights-bearing individuals, not merely subjects of state supervision. As the Supreme Court has recognized in cases expanding due process protections for juveniles, constitutional safeguards do not disappear simply because proceedings are labeled “civil” or “rehabilitative.” Providing access to jury trials affirms that when the government seeks to impose serious consequences on a young person, fairness and community oversight should play a central role in determining the outcome.
Along with this, juvenile court proceedings can lead to serious deprivations of liberty. Although the juvenile system is framed as rehabilitative rather than punitive, a delinquency adjudication can result in detention, placement in a residential facility, long-term supervision, and lasting consequences that affect education, employment, and housing. When the state has the power to confine a young person, many argue that the procedural safeguards should mirror those in adult criminal court, including the right to have guilt determined by a jury of peers rather than a single judge.
Access to jury trials can also serve as a check on concentrated judicial authority. In most juvenile courts, the judge alone acts as fact-finder, weighing evidence and determining whether the allegations have been proven. While judges are trained legal professionals, relying on a single decision-maker increases the risk of unconscious bias or error. A jury introduces multiple perspectives and collective deliberation into the process, which can strengthen confidence in the outcome and reduce the perception that the system is arbitrary or overly paternalistic.
Juvenile courts historically operated with greater informality and limited public scrutiny, by the goal of protecting children’s privacy. However, this informality has sometimes resulted in fewer procedural protections. Jury trials can promote procedural rigor by requiring clearer presentation of evidence, stricter adherence to evidentiary rules, and greater clarity in the state’s burden of proof. For youth facing allegations that may follow them for years, these protections can be critical.
Constitutional rights and civil liberties should not be dependent on age. Adults have the choice between receiving a jury trial and a judge trial. This same right should be afforded to young people.
