Juvenile Court Case Summary

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.

Five major court cases that influenced our treatment of juveniles today include Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Breen v. Jones (1975). Kent v. United States (1966) set the standards for transfers. In this case, the judge ruled Kent to adult court without consulting with the child, the child’s mother or attorney. It was this case that determined the attorney has the right to review documentation presented by the probation officer. Thanks to In re Gault (1967), juveniles how have a right to due process during any proceedings in which a juvenile is facing institutional confinement. It was also outlined in In re Gault (1967) exactly what a juveniles rights are during the entire process. Key rights are being notified of the charges brought up against them, right to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses by the attorney’s.

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

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.

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.

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 most jurisdictions, there were no transcripts, no formal presentations of evidence, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no right of appeal. The intent of all this was to remove procedural and legal obstacles, so that the court could quickly move in to protect a child in danger. The high court scrapped the informal nature of juvenile justice, one in a series of rulings that ultimately conferred all the same legal rights on juveniles as adults possess (except for the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, for obvious reasons).

In the Supreme Court case “Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995,” the question before the court was whether or not “...random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.”(“Vernonia School District.” [Oyez]). The case concerned the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, a seventh-grade student, James Acton, claimed that the situation regarding a mandatory drug test in his school was an unreasonable search. Without doing the test, he was not allowed to join an athletic team. Although the court case changed its name order, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court trial was the Vernonia

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

In earlier Colonial days, children and teenagers behaving antisocially or found to have committed a crime were sent through the adult justice system, even children as young as seven-years old who were accused of doing wrong were put into prison with adults. But, over the centuries the juvenile justice system has changed tremendously from imprisoning children within the adult system. There are five periods of juvenile justice which changed the process of juveniles begin incarcerated with adults; the Puritan Period, the Refuge Period, Juvenile Court Period, Juvenile Rights Period, and the Crime Control Period.

Two years later, the charge was dropped by the court, and the judge ruled that based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the police had conducted an unreasonable search of the students locker. Even though the student was guilty, the court had to drop the charge because it was violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (Nelson Education, 2008) The Charter did an effective job in protecting the student’s legal rights even though the student was guilty.

One of the most controversial issues in the rights of juveniles today is addressed in the question, "Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles"? For nearly a century the juvenile courts have existed to shield the majority of juvenile offenders from the full weight of criminal law and to protect their entitled "special rights and immunities." In the case of kent vs. United states in 1996, Justice Fortas stated some of these "special rights" which include; Protection from publicity, confinement only to twenty-one years of age, no confinement with adults, and protection against the consequences of adult conviction such as the loss of civil rights, the use of adjudication against him

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.