Gerald Gault Case

In re Gault¹ stems from a case involving a boy named Gerald Gault who at the time of incident was a 15-year-old boy from Arizona who was charged with making obscene telephone calls to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Gerald Gault was sent to a detention facility without notifying his parents, questioned by a Probation officer without having an attorney or parent present, and after a short hearing, was found to be delinquent and sent to the state “industrial school” until he turned 21. After Gault was sentenced, his parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in their son’s case. The petition was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gault’s not satisfied with either court’s decision sought relief in the United States Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant².

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

Arizona was being appealed because even though Miranda out of his own free will confessed that yes he did rape and kidnapped Patty McGee. How ever rape victims in the state of Arizona have to resist to the utmost for it to be considered rape and McGee had not been able to say that she had done so ,and because of that Alvin Moore immediately appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICA .Alvin Moore asked was the statement that Miranda made voluntarily or forced on by the police who was interrogating him and was he asked in his brief ,a mexican man of little education wasn't told and so did not afforded all the safeguards to his rights as an American citizen provided by the Constitution of the United States. However by the time the Arizona high court got to consider Mirandas appeal in 1965, the U.S Supreme Court under Liberal Earl Warren had put in favor of the side of defendant's(Miranda) rights. The reason he had done so is because they had taken a step towards Moores trial claim that the suspect in case (Miranda),is entitled to a lawyer during police questioning and he was not given one when they were questioning him.Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED

A 1967 the Supreme Court required juvenile courts to respect the due process of law rights of juveniles during their proceedings. The ruling was the result of Gerald Francis Gault. Gault had been placed in detention for making an obscene call to a neighbor while under probation. “The Arizona juvenile court had decided to place him in

This case had to do with Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was in interrogation with the police and he was not told about his rights to remain silent and the right to counsel. Even though he was not informed of his rights he still signed a confession saying that what he said what he said to the police in the interrogation was completely voluntary. On the top of each page was the statement, “I, Ernesto A. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” He was not fully acknowledged of his rights until 1:30 when he was signing his confession after a two hour long interrogation. This case

During the trial, Kent counsel made the defense that he was not criminally responsible, instead, he stated that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Although he did everything to prove his client was not fully responsible, Kent was sentenced to serve five to fifteen for each count he was charged with, his counsel went before the Court Of Appeals, and asked for a revisal arguing that Petitioners detention and interrogation was unlawful, the police failed to notify his parents as well as follow the procedure of the juvenile act. The case was denied by the Court Of Appeals but overturned by the Supreme court. This resulted in the idea that there must be waiver hearings before a juvenile can be transferred to criminal court, as well as a juvenile can consult with his or her counsel before and during hearings. Another case that is very important for juvenile rights is In Re Gault (1967), A fifteen-year-old named Francis Gault along with his friend were taken into custody by the Arizona police, now was already on probation for a previous offense that involved being in the company who stole a wallet and purse. The reason he was taken into custody was a neighbor who was a victim of his rude, sexual remarks and the cops arrested him and put him in a detention center until

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

This is a very important case in the criminal world, it is the case that the Supreme Courts ruled law enforcement has to advise a suspect of their Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination. The case was Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436[1966]). From our book it states, "The prosecution may not us statements, whether exculpatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguard effective to secure the privileges against self-incrimination" (Worrall, 2015). This case was a major case back when it happen and brought light to some major issues that was happening in that time. In this paper I will describe the case and the outcome, also give more details of what the case did for the future with rights of defendants and courts case.

The timeline of this case starts the night of the murder and Cyntoia is sent Juvenile Justice System and stayed there until her transfer hearing; she was put her because she was only six-teen at the time. During questioning from the detectives Brown states a full confession of the crime without legal representation; not knowing the meaning of the right to remain silent she talked. November 4, 2004 Brown has a transfer hearing at Davidson County Juvenile Justice center, this hearing determines whether she will be tried as a juvenile or an adult; she is still six-teen at the time.

In this case Miranda was not told his rights, and he served as a witness against himself. Also, as soon as he was arrested he should have been read his rights and should have known that he had the right to not speak until he had an attorney with him. Miranda did not know this at the time he was arrested. Miranda’s team appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, the highest state court in Arizona. The court upheld the lower court's decision, therefore keeping the punishment. About 3 years later, the US Supreme Court read over the Miranda V Arizona case. They had seen the paper that had Miranda's confession written on saying “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” However, they were certain that Miranda was not told his rights by the

Alito, delivered the final vote of 5-4, majority vote at expense for the case of Salinas V. Texas on June 17, 2013. The SCOTUS decided that Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination are not reprehensible to defendants who chose to only remain mute during questioning, or a portion of questioning. SCOTUS states, “Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim this protection” (Justice Alito, Oyez). The SCOTUS later goes on to say, “the Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not establish a complete right to remain silent but only guarantees that a criminal defendant may not be forced to testify against themselves” (Justice Kennedy, Oyez). Therefore, If police officers read Salinas his rights at any point during conviction, questioning, or trial, there was no constitutional

After pleading guilty to armed robbery in Wisconsin, Gerald Scarpelli, was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to probation. Scarpelli signed an agreement allowing him to reside in Illinois and was supervised by the Adult Probation Department of Illinois. Shortly after, Scarpelli was caught committing burglary with an accomplice. After being informed of his Constitutional rights, Scarpelli admitted to committing the felony, an admission he later claimed was made under extreme duress. The Wisconsin Department of Corrections revoked Scarpelli’s probation because of the violation and imprisoned him. He was not given a hearing. Two years later, Scarpelli filed a writ of habeas corpus and the district court held that revoking

The petition alleges that the preventable death of the daughters of Ms. Gonzales and the damage they suffered violate her rights to life and to the safety of the person enshrined in Article I, her right to privacy and family life provided in article V, his right to protection of the family, provided in article VI, his right to protection of motherhood and childhood, in accordance with article VII and his right to the inviolability of the home, provided in article IX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter, "the American Declaration"). The petitioners add that the fact that the United States did not investigate Ms. González's complaint or provide her with a remedy violates her right to justice, enshrined in Article XVIII, as well as her right to obtain a quick decision from the courts. authorities, provided for in Article XXIV. Finally, the petition maintains that the fact that the United States did not ensure the substantive rights provided for in the articles listed violates Ms. Gonzales' right to equality, as provided in Article II. In response to the petition, the State argues that the petitioners' complaints are inadmissible because the alleged victim did not exhaust domestic

Thankfully for Jones, landmark cases such as In re Gault expanded the constitutional rights of juveniles. The Supreme Court stated in Gault that "neither the 14th Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is exclusively for adults alone,". This essentially included the Fifth Amendment. Such rights included; were the right to be given timely written notice of the hearing and the specific facts upon which the petition alleging delinquency is based, the right to be represented by counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. The court concluded that, for purposes of the right to counsel, a "proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be 'delinquent' and subjected