In which case did the burden of proof for juvenile criminal charges change to "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

The correct choice is significant because "In Re Winship" established the requirement that the standard of proof in juvenile delinquency proceedings must be "beyond a reasonable doubt," similar to the standard applied in adult criminal cases. This landmark decision underscored the importance of protecting the rights of juveniles within the legal system, acknowledging that the consequences of a delinquency finding can be severe and life-altering for young individuals.

Prior to this case, juveniles were often subject to a lower standard of proof, which did not adequately safeguard their rights. The Supreme Court's ruling in "In Re Winship" recognized that a higher standard helps prevent wrongful convictions and ensures that the state meets its burden of proof when asserting that a juvenile has engaged in criminal behavior.

This case highlights essential principles of due process and the rights of the accused, which are foundational to the justice system. The other options involve various important legal principles concerning juvenile justice but do not specifically address the burden of proof standard in the same way that "In Re Winship" does.