Gerald Gault Case Summary

In 1966, Gary Duncan was charged in Louisiana with simple battery, a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison and a three hundred dollar fine. Duncan requested a jury trial, but at the time, Louisiana granted jury trials only to cases punishable by execution or imprisonment at hard labor, and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial had not yet been incorporated against the states. Duncan’s request was denied. He was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a ten-dollar fine. Duncan appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case. Duncan then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, asserting that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteed his right to a jury trial.

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.

Jimmy Maddox was convicted of rape in a Georgia state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Having unsuccessfully pursued his direct appeal and the state post-conviction remedy, Maddox filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of the

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

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.

The first case I analyzed was the Weaver v. Massachusetts case. It involved a petitioner who was convicted of murder. He was tried in a Massachusetts court, in which the courtroom could not accommodate all the jurors. All non- eligible jurors were asked to leave including the petitioner 's mother and her minister. The case included “a Sixth Amendment violation” (Weaver, 2017). The sixth amendment states “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” (Staff, 2010). A public trail states that “friends and relatives of a defendant must be initially permitted to attend trial” (Public, 2008). Since the court did not allow the defendant 's mother to stay due to space, they therefore broke the sixth amendment. This misjustice classifies as a violation of the civil liberties due to the fact that it violates a constitutional amendment that places a limitation strictly on our government. 5 The second case that I analyzed was the Advocate Health Care Network vs. Stapleton case. 6 The case involved the “Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974” (Advocate, 2017). This act was set up to help private employers; it offered them pension plans. They were told if they followed the rules and guidelines of the plan it would “plan solvency and protect plan participants.” (Advocate, 2017) There was an exception to this

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

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. Clarence Gideon could not afford a lawyer, so under the 6th amendment he demonstrated his rights by asking the Florida Circuit Court judge to appoint one for him. His request was denied and he was left to represent himself (Lewis, 1964). He did an awful job of defending himself during the trial and was found guilty (PBS, 2006). He then wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court from his prison cell stating that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

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

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Davis court case ties in with our government class in that Texas has to respect the Bill of Rights and incorporate them in every trial. Texas state courts have applied federal interpretations to provisions in state bills of rights similar in wording to the provisions in the United States Bill of Rights because there is a well-established federal supremacy. Texas has broken its promise to provide the appropriate right to a fair and unbiased sentencing hearing for this individual. With this said we can conclude that Mr. Buck’s right to a fair and speedy trial, under the sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights, has been abused. Therefore making the courts’ decision

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.

Laws tend to make the lives of every individual safer and pleasant. The subject of this paper focuses on evaluating and identifying the Constitutional safeguards within the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments of the United States Constitution. How these safeguards to the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment will apply to juvenile and adult court proceedings. Finally, this paper will focus the impact that these safeguards, such as speedy trial, Miranda warning, exclusionary rule, and right to counsel will have on the day- to- day operation for juvenile and adult courts.