Though juveniles do not have a right to a speedy trial guaranteed by a rule of criminal procedure like an adult, they do have a speedy trial right guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. However, dismissal for violation of this right requires a showing of prejudice to the child.

The mere fact that a defendant has been rearrested multiple times on the same charges does not amount to harassment. The defendant must show either harassment or prejudice from the rearrest for the court to grant a writ of habeas corpus, as long as the Commonwealth is still within the statute of limitations for the alleged crime.

Evidence is material under Brady if its use in a trial would have created a "reasonable probability" of a different result. "The question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. A 'reasonable probability' of a different result is accordingly shown when the government's evidentiary suppression 'undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.'" Moreover, a defendant is not burdened with showing that the undisclosed evidence would have undercut the legal sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence but whether "favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict."

The materiality test – whether undisclosed evidence would have created a reasonable probability of a different result – applies whether undisclosed evidence was requested specifically, generally, or not at all.

The Due Process Clause requires that a juvenile charged with a violation of a criminal law have every element of each crime charged proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

While not every due process guarantee must be applied to the juvenile courts, it is clear that juveniles involved in delinquency proceedings have the right to notice, counsel, confrontation, and the privilege against self incrimination. The juvenile courts, however, are fundamentally different than an adult criminal court, and of all the rights that could be granted to juveniles, the right to a jury would be the most disruptive of the juvenile justice system. Given the procedural safeguards already in place, the juvenile system can operate to protect individual freedoms without the need for trials by jury.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to trial by jury in all criminal prosecutions, but a juvenile adjudication is not the same as a criminal prosecution. Standing alone, the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee the right to trial by jury and therefore juveniles do not have such a right. The standard applicable to such proceedings is fundamental fairness, and a trial in front of a judge is not fundamentally unfair.

The Due Process Clause affords juveniles the right to notice of charges, the right to counsel, the right to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, as well as the privilege against self-incrimination.

In re Gault merely adjusted the balance between the purposes of the juvenile court and "procedural orderliness." Gault "should not be viewed by the Courts or Judges of this Commonwealth as a mandate to abandon the juvenile court adjudicative procedure. Rather, it is an invitation to formulate a court procedure which will combine the best aspects of juvenile and criminal court procedure into an amalgam which will offer the juvenile the best of both worlds."

Arguing with a police officer is a constitutionally protected First Amendment right and is not disorderly conduct. Unless the defendant's act is intended to create a risk of public inconvenience or alarm, or creates unreasonable noise "not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society," he or she is free to argue with a police officer. The disorderly conduct statute "must not be used as a catchall or dragnet for the prosecution of conduct that is uncivil, annoying or irritating."