Simone Lawson
In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled on the case of In re Gault, a landmark decision that extended the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to juvenile defendants, giving them the same rights as adult defendants. The case concerned 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd phone calls and was subsequently ordered to be confined at a State Industrial School until he turned 21. Gault's parents challenged the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in their son's case, arguing that their son and their procedural due process rights had been violated. The Supreme Court of Arizona initially dismissed the case, but the US Supreme Court agreed to hear it, ultimately ruling in favour of extending due process rights to juveniles.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year | 1967 |
| Case | In re Gault |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Decision | Held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as adult defendants |
| Plaintiff | Gerald Gault |
| Plaintiff's Age | 15 years old |
| Plaintiff's Status | Juvenile delinquent |
| Plaintiff's Crime | Making lewd telephone calls |
| Defendant | State of Arizona |
| Defendant's Law | Arizona Juvenile Code |
| Defendant's Status | Unconstitutional |
| Reason | Denial of procedural due process rights, including failure to notify the accused and their parents of the charges and hearings, lack of right to counsel, right to confront accuser, right to remain silent, admission of "unsworn hearsay testimony", and lack of records of proceedings |
| Judgement | The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed dismissal of the writ, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded, overruling Betts v. Brady |
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. The focus of the juvenile justice system was on rehabilitation and treatment rather than punishment, and legal formalities such as the use of rules of evidence and the presence of an attorney were deemed unnecessary. As a result, juveniles were afforded little legal protection and were largely at the mercy of the presiding judge.
The case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed this imbalance and extended due process rights to juveniles. The case centred around 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody without his parents being notified after a neighbour complained about receiving an offensive phone call. Gault was subsequently ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he turned 21, the maximum sentence for an adult for the same crime was a $50 fine and two months in jail.
The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as adult defendants. This meant that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
In its decision, the Court specified that due process requires that the child and their parents or guardian must be notified in writing of the specific charges or factual allegations in advance of the hearing, so that they have time to prepare. The Court also held that the assistance of counsel is essential in juvenile delinquency proceedings 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.
The American Constitution: Limiting Federal Government Powers
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right to counsel
In the mid-1960s, there were two different legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old, was taken into custody as a result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. He was ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he turned 21, despite an adult charged with the same crime receiving a maximum sentence of a $50 fine and two months in jail.
Gault's parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gaults then sought relief in the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant.
The US 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 in order to be considered at a juvenile delinquency hearing. Such written notice must be given "at the earliest practicable time and, in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation". It was further held that the assistance of counsel is essential for purposes of determination of juvenile delinquency.
The Court's opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas, a noted proponent of children's rights. The Gault decision provided basic due process rights to juveniles, including the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
Enlightenment's Impact on American Revolution and Constitution
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right to confront accusers
In the mid-1960s, there were two distinct legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. The case of In re Gault (1967) centred on 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd telephone calls. Gault was ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he turned 21, despite an adult charged with the same crime receiving a maximum sentence of a $50 fine and two months in jail.
The constitutional issue in In re Gault concerned the procedural due process rights of juvenile defendants in delinquency proceedings. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in Gault's case, on the grounds of denial of various procedural due process rights. Specifically, it highlighted the importance of juveniles' right to confront their accusers.
Gault's accuser, Mrs. Ora Cook, was not present at either hearing, and no transcript or recording was made, leading to conflicting accounts of what occurred. This absence of a formal record meant that those present later disagreed about the specifics of the hearings, including any admissions made by Gault.
The case of In re Gault affirmed 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 charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The ruling recognised that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies equally to juvenile and adult defendants.
The decision in In re Gault provided a landmark moment in US Supreme Court history, ensuring that juveniles facing criminal charges are granted basic due process rights and protections under the Constitution.
US Constitution Principles: Do Schools Reflect Them?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Juveniles' right to timely notification of charges
In the mid-1960s, the United States had two distinct legal systems: one for minors and one for adults. The case of In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) centred on 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd telephone calls. The constitutional issue in this case was the denial of Gerald Gault's procedural due process rights, specifically his right to timely notification of the charges against him.
At the time, Arizona law did not require that the accused or their parents be notified of the specific charges, and in this instance, neither Gerald nor his parents were informed of the charges against him until more than two months after his initial court hearing. This was a direct violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court held applied to juvenile defendants as well as adult defendants.
The Supreme Court's decision in In re Gault provided basic due process rights to juveniles, including the right to timely notification of charges. The Court held that due process required that the child and their parents or guardian must be notified in writing of the specific charges or factual allegations, and that this notification must be given "at the earliest practicable time, and, in any event, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation". This ensured that juveniles and their parents or guardians had enough time to prepare an adequate defence.
The Gault decision was a landmark ruling that transformed the juvenile justice system by guaranteeing juveniles the same fundamental 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.
Special and Constitutional Courts: What's the Difference?
You may want to see also
Juveniles' right against self-incrimination
In the mid-1960s, there were two different legal systems in the United States: one for minors and one for adults. The case of In re Gault (1967) centred on 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody for allegedly making lewd telephone calls. Gault was on probation at the time of his arrest, having previously been found in the company of a boy who had stolen a woman's purse.
After hearings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. This sentence was significantly harsher than the maximum sentence an adult would have received for the same crime: a $50 fine and two months in jail.
Gault's parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gaults then sought relief in the US Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedure used in their son's case on the grounds of denial of various procedural due process rights.
The US Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as adult defendants. This meant that juveniles accused of crimes in delinquency proceedings must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
In the context of the right against self-incrimination, the Court's decision in In re Gault affirmed 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. This right against self-incrimination is a fundamental aspect of the US legal system and is intended to protect individuals from being forced to provide incriminating evidence that could be used against them in a criminal proceeding.
In the case of In re Gault, the Court recognised that juveniles, like adults, have the right to remain silent and cannot be compelled to testify or provide evidence that may incriminate them. This right against self-incrimination is essential to ensuring that juveniles are afforded due process and are not unfairly or unjustly convicted based on coerced or involuntary confessions.
It is worth noting that while the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental protection, it does not mean that a juvenile's statements or confessions cannot be considered in a court proceeding. If a juvenile voluntarily and knowingly waives their right to remain silent and chooses to make a statement or confession, that statement can be used as evidence in a court proceeding. However, it is crucial that law enforcement officers and the courts scrupulously respect the juvenile's right to remain silent and ensure that any waiver of this right is made voluntarily and without coercion.
Qualifications for Serving in the House: A Constitutional Overview
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
In 1964, 15-year-old Gerald "Jerry" Gault was accused of making an obscene phone call to his neighbour, Mrs. Cook. He was taken into custody without his parents being notified. He was ordered to be confined at the State Industrial School until he turned 21.
The constitutional issue in the case was whether the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to juvenile defendants.
The US Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants, just like adult defendants.
The ruling provided basic due process rights to juveniles, such as the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
