Gault V Us Case Summary

Gault V. United States, S. 1, 87S.Ct. 1428, 18L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
II. Issues: Were the Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the Due Process Clause violated? Does Due Process apply to juveniles the same as it does to adults? The Supreme Court addressed the following issues In Re Gault 1967:

(1) Was there an issue of due process
(2) Notification of the charges
(3) Notice of Right to counsel and/or appointment
(4) Right to confrontation and cross examine accuser
(5) A Defendant’s right against self-incrimination
(6) A right to receive a transcript/recording of proceeding
(7) The right to appeal

III. Holding:
(1) Based on case law from Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, the Supreme Court held that the essentials of due process must be followed. The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process.
(2) Notice of the charges: An adequate written notice must be provided to a juvenile and his or h...

... middle of paper ...

...om. The Court found Officer Flagg took and used against him, Gerald Gault’s confession without his parents or any counsel being present and never notifying the juvenile of his right to remain silent.
(6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule upon the issue of defendant’s right to receive a transcript.
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.