Gerald Gault Case Study

Kent held that juveniles were entitled to a hearing, representation by counsel, access to information upon which the waiver decision was based, and a statement of reasons justifying the waiver decision. It included the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home life, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living. These rights we made so that the justice courts can provide guidance and rehabilitation for the juvenile also with protection for society. There are some juveniles out there who are extremely dangerous and do not wish to change the way they are living their life.

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.

At Michael C.’s trial his defense argued when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). The trial judge denied the defense’s motion to suppress the evidence; however, an appeal was eventually filed with the California Supreme Court, and the court reversed the initial ruling (Henry-Mays, 2007). The California Supreme Court’s premise behind their ruling was the probation officer served as Michael C.’s guardian, and when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). Since, we understand why the California Supreme Court reversed the initial ruling, let us analyze the Supreme Court’s decision on this case

There was no notice made or left at the home and no other attempt to notify the parents that he had been taken into custody. Once Mrs. Gault learned where he was, by way of the Lewis family, they went to the detention center where he was being held. Probation officer, Flagg, told Mrs. Gault that a hearing would be held in Juvenile Court at 3 o'clock the following day, June 9 (In re Gault, 1967, page 387 U. S. 5). At the hearing on the 9th, Gault, his mother, his older brother, and Probation Officers Flagg and Henderson appeared before the Juvenile Judge in chambers. Mrs. Cook, the complainant, was not there. No one was sworn at this hearing. No transcript or recording was made. No memorandum or record of the substance of the proceedings was prepared (In re Gault, 1967, page 387 U. S. 5). Gault was questioned by the judge about the telephone call and was not advised he had the right to remain silent or confer with counsel. On June 11 or 12, after having been detained since June 8, Gault was released. There is no explanation in the record as to why he was kept in the detention home or why he was released. At 5 p.m. on the day of Gault’s release, Mrs. Gault received a note signed by Officer Flagg. It was on plain paper, not letterhead and read: "Judge McGHEE has set Monday June 15, 1964 at 11:00 A.M. as the date and time for further Hearings on Gerald's delinquency" (In re Gault, 1967, Page 387 U. S.

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

The lower courts that were deciding on the case initially were the district court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court. The District court granted the motion that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Ninth circuit found that the strip search was unjustified under the fourth amendment. The circuit court later tested the qualified immunity, and discovered that the rights of the child were established at time of the search.

Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is

In Utah, an eighteen-year-old boy, James Edwards, in foster care wants to get the right of owning an arm. Utah Division of Child and Family Services didn't give him permission to get a firearm, but the boy's attorney was defending his rights by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judicial process didn't permit the Edwards to bear the firearm for the purposes of safety of the other people that are

The Facts: A judge out of a New York Family court found 12-year old Winship (Defendant) had committed an act of stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker that if it had been committed by an adult it would have been a crime. But due to it being a 12-year old, the judge relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, led the way of giving good reason that justified the fact that a young person did the crime that he was charged with. Winship had to dealt with a finding like this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was supported by the New York Court of Appeals and sustained the constitutional, but Winship was granted a review by the United States Supreme Court.

Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortes declared, "Under our Constitution, the state of being a kid does not legitimize a kangaroo court." Reviewing the instance of 15-year-old Gerald Gault, who was condemned to six years in an Arizona youth restorative office for influencing a disgusting telephone to call, the Court announced that minors be managed the greater part of the due-process rights required in grown-up criminal courts. (Krisberg, 2018) Gault flagged another time of changes. One was a development to occupy whatever number young people as would be prudent from the formal court framework and to decriminalize "adolescent status offenses, for example, truancy, fleeing, time limit infringement, and hopelessness. The 1970s saw across the board endeavors to deinstitutionalize or "decarcerate" youths, moving them from secure detainment focuses and preparing schools to network based projects that underlined instruction and

In re Gault was a landmark decision issued by the United States Supreme Court that provided juveniles delinquents similar due process rights already afforded to adults. For example, the right to notice of charges, the right to confront the accuser or witnesses, the right against self- incrimination, and the right to counsel. It established that juveniles, just like adults, are guaranteed a fair trial. Gerald Francis Gault made several inappropriate pranks phone calls to a neighbor while with his friend. After the neighbor made a complaint, officers arrived at Jerry’s house and took him into custody.

When 15-year-old Gerald Gault was on probation, he and a friend made ‘obscene comments’ in a telephone call made to a female neighbor. At the hearing, Gerald had no counsel. On top of that, the victim, the neighbor, was not present, and there was no evidence presented. He was found guilty and sent to a training school. Personally, I think that the trial was really in violation of due process rights. From what I have learned in the past, all suspects have access to an attorney, and they have a right to be able to face the victim in their trial. Having Gerald adjudicated delinquent and sending to a training school was unfair to him. He had an unfair trial, and therefore should have had the option to be retried with the victim and an attorney present.

There would be a constitutional issue because juvenile have certain constitutional rights at negotiation, such as the right to a lawyer and the right to challenge and interrogate witnesses, but they have no right to a trial by jury. The subject of juvenile’s rights is poorly defined in the courts, somewhat because the public as a whole has not decided how much independence to grant juvenile. When most juvenile’s supporters talk about juvenile’s rights, they are not stating to the same rights detained by adults, such as the rights to vote. Instead, they mean that more importance should be placed on juvenile’s standing as “regular persons” eligible of benefits under the law as providing in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

When the law was reviewed by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges ruled 3-0 that it was constitutional. The court said that minors are free to

Carol met with Gary Lott and others about our conversation last week regarding the asset tags that were requested to be or have been removed from the network devices, could you please contact him to discuss this matter in more detail? He would like to have a better understanding of the situation and assist, if possible. Let us know the outcome of the conversation after you meet with him as we also discussed the surplus of network devices and that OIT should receive back the surplus