Eleanor Finch
In 1967, the US Supreme Court heard the case of In re Gault, a landmark decision that extended the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to juvenile defendants, affording them many of the same rights as adults in delinquency proceedings. The case centred around 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd telephone calls. Gault's parents were not notified of his arrest, and he was ordered to be confined at a State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. The constitutional principle in question was whether juveniles accused of crimes were entitled to the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Constitutional principle in question | Due process rights of juvenile defendants |
| Nature of the case | Juveniles should be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults |
| Specific issues | Right to timely notification of charges, right to confront witnesses, right against self-incrimination, right to counsel |
| Appellants | Gerald Gault's parents |
| Appellant's action | Brought a habeas corpus action in state courts |
| Basis of appeal | Denial of various procedural due process rights |
| Court's decision | Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants |
| Court's opinion | Justice Abe Fortas |
| Lower court ruling | Committed Gault to juvenile detention until he turned 21 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Juveniles' right to due process
In the mid-1960s, there were two distinct legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. As a juvenile, Gerald Gault was not afforded significant legal protection and was subject to the whims of the presiding judge. Legal formalities such as the use of rules of evidence and the presence of an attorney were deemed unnecessary.
In the case of In re Gault, the US Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants, in addition to adult defendants. Juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be granted similar due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
In June 1964, the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona, took 15-year-old Gerald Gault into custody without notifying Gault's parents, following a complaint of an inappropriate and offensive telephone call made by the child. Gault was ordered committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he reached the age of 21. The appellants, Gault's parents, challenged the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedure used in their son's case, arguing a denial of various procedural due process rights.
The Supreme Court held that due process required that the child and their parents or guardian must be notified in writing of the specific charge or factual allegations for a juvenile delinquency hearing. This written notice must be provided "at the earliest practicable time and in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation". The Court also held that the assistance of counsel is essential for determining juvenile delinquency and that the Constitution guarantees that no person, including a juvenile, shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves when threatened with the deprivation of liberty.
Understanding Malpractice: Incapacitated Patients in Nursing Homes
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right to counsel
In 1964, 15-year-old Gerald Gault was taken into custody in Arizona for allegedly making lewd telephone calls. After hearings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was ordered to be committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he reached the age of 21.
Gault's parents contested the ruling, arguing that the teenager had not admitted to making the alleged lewd statements. They petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain their son's release. The Supreme Court referred the case back to Judge Robert McGhee for a hearing.
The case, *In re Gault*, eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Gault's commitment to the State Industrial School was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that Gault had been denied the right to an attorney, had not been formally notified of the charges against him, had not been informed of his right against self-incrimination, and had not been given the opportunity to confront his accusers.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in *In re Gault* was a landmark ruling that established that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults. This includes the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
The right to counsel means that juveniles and their parents must be advised of their right to be represented by an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent the juvenile. This right is essential to ensuring that juveniles understand their legal rights and options and can effectively navigate the complex legal system.
Founding Fathers, Slave Owners and the Constitution
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right to confront witnesses
In the case of In re Gault, the US Supreme Court held that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be afforded the same due process rights as adults, including the right to confront witnesses. This was a landmark decision that provided basic due process rights to juveniles, who previously had little to no legal protection under the law.
In the mid-1960s, when the Gault case occurred, there were two different legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. As a juvenile, Gerald Gault was subject to the whims of the presiding judge, with legal formalities such as the use of rules of evidence and the presence of an attorney deemed unnecessary.
In the Gault case, 15-year-old Gerald Gault was taken into custody as a result of a complaint made by his neighbour, Ora Cook, who alleged that she had received an inappropriate and offensive telephone call from Gault. Gault's mother was not notified of his arrest and was not permitted to take him home when she located him at the county jail.
At the hearings, Judge Robert McGhee of the Gila County Superior Court, acting as a juvenile court judge, found Gault to be a "delinquent child" and ordered him confined at the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. The charge listed in the report prepared by the county probation officers was "Lewd Phone Calls." However, Gault's accuser, Cook, was not present at either hearing, and no witnesses were sworn. This meant that those present later disagreed about what had occurred during the hearings, as there were no transcripts or recordings made.
The Gaults appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the Arizona Juvenile Code was unconstitutional because it did not require that the accused or their parents be notified of the specific charges or hearings, allowed no appeal, and denied the right to confront the accuser, among other things. The state Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition, acknowledging that the constitutionality of Juvenile Court proceedings required adherence to due process.
In its decision, the US Supreme Court held that due process required that the child and their parents or guardians must be notified in writing of the specific charges or factual allegations in advance of the hearing. It further held that the assistance of counsel is essential for purposes of determining juvenile delinquency and that the Constitution guarantees that no person, including a juvenile, shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves when threatened with the deprivation of liberty.
Hamilton's Constitution Fear: Tyranny of the Majority
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Juveniles' right against self-incrimination
In the mid-1960s, when the In re Gault case occurred, there were two distinct legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. As a juvenile, Gerald Gault was not afforded significant legal protection and was subject to the whims of the presiding judge.
In the case of In re Gault, the US Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants, just as it does to adult defendants. This means that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be granted the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
The case centred on Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old who was taken into custody by the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona, without his parents being notified. A neighbour, Ora Cook, had complained about receiving an inappropriate and offensive telephone call. After locating her son in the county jail, Gault's mother was not permitted to take him home.
During the hearings, Gault was not advised that he did not have to testify or make a statement, nor was he informed that an incriminating statement could result in his commitment as a "delinquent". The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the contention that Gault had a right to be advised that he need not incriminate himself. It was argued that a rule requiring the judge to advise the infant of a privilege against self-incrimination would hinder the necessary flexibility for individualized treatment.
The US Supreme Court, however, held that the Arizona law, as applied in this case, denied the Gaults their right against self-incrimination, among other rights. The Court emphasised that these rights are specifically granted by provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to the states.
The Constitution: Building a More Perfect Union
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right to timely notification of charges
In the United States, the mid-1960s saw the existence of two different legal systems: one for minors and one for adults. The case of In re Gault in 1967 changed this by providing basic due process rights to juveniles.
Gerald Gault, the 15-year-old son of the appellants, was taken into custody as a result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. After hearings before a juvenile court judge, Gerald was ordered to be committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he reached the age of 21.
The Arizona Juvenile Code was challenged by the appellants on the grounds that it was unconstitutional because it did not require that either the accused or their parents be notified of the specific charges against them. The Gaults also argued that they were not given notice of the hearings and that there was no right to appeal.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant in delinquency proceedings where incarceration is a possibility. The Court held that due process required that the child and their parents or guardian must be notified, in writing, of the specific charge or factual allegations for a juvenile delinquency hearing. This written notice must be given "at the earliest practicable time and, in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation".
The Court's decision in In re Gault was a landmark ruling, ensuring that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings are afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
Sedition Act of 1789: Unconstitutional Violation?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old, was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd phone calls. He was ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he turned 21.
The case questioned whether juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be afforded the same due process rights as adults.
The ruling held that juveniles are entitled to many of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
