the case: In re Gault (1967)
Step I: Read the background of the case found at the right. After reading discuss the following:
|
Background of the Case: In 1964, an Arizona sheriff took 15-year-old Gerald Gault into custody after a woman complained Gerald and another boy made an indecent phone call. The sheriff left no notice for Gerald’s parents, who had to figure out on their own where Gerald went. At the station, the deputy told Gerald’s mom there would be a hearing the next day. They kept Gerald in custody overnight. At the hearing, nobody wrote anything down or recorded what was said. Witnesses were not sworn in, and the woman who complained about the phone call wasn’t there. The judge said he would think about what to do, and they kept Gerald in custody for two or three more days. A few days later, Gerald’s mom got a note that there would be another hearing. Again, nobody made any record of what happened, and the woman wasn’t there. At both hearings, Gerald testified about what happened. At the end of second hearing, the judge found Gerald to be delinquent and said he must stay in juvenile detention until he turned 21. Gerald's lawyers argued that the State of Arizona had deprived him of his liberty without due process of law and challenged this in court on appeal. |
Step II: Discuss the following:
|
Step III: Watch the video to the right, it offers a bit more information about the case of In re Gault. After watching the video, discuss the following questions:
1. How did the Arizona State Supreme Court rule on Gault's case? 2. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling? 3. Did the U.S. Supreme Court agree or disagree with this ruling? |
|
Step IV: Summary and Review
The Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) ruled in favor of Gerald Gault. In short, the Supreme Court decided that the 14th amendment guarantees that states must give minors/juveniles/kids accused of crimes their due process rights found in Amendments 5 and 6. Here are the due process procedures the Court said Arizona must give to juveniles as well as adults:
Notice of Charges. Both Gerald and his parents should have received written notice of the charges against him. That notice should have been delivered far enough in advance to allow time to prepare a defense.
Right to Counsel. Gerald and his parents should have been told that they had a right to a lawyer, and that one would be appointed for them if they could not afford one.
Right to Remain Silent. The Court said Gerald did not have to testify against himself. His confession could not be used against him unless it was obtained properly.
Right to Confrontation. Without a valid confession, only testimony from witnesses who had been sworn in could be used against Gerald, and he had a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
REMEMBER that Bill of Rights originally only applied to limiting federal government, not state governments. The first amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” not the states. The Supreme Court case Baron v. Baltimore in 1833 upheld this concept. SO, the 14th amendment finally allows court challenges to make sure the bill of rights protects you from STATE governments, but also that you aren’t discriminated against because of your membership in any minority group. (Like being a child/minor/juvenile under the age of 18)
The 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." With the in Re Gault case, the court ruled that STATES cannot deny children/kids/minors the right to due process found in the 5th and 6th amendments.
Please be sure to complete your G.O. on this case before moving on!
The Supreme Court unanimously (9-0) ruled in favor of Gerald Gault. In short, the Supreme Court decided that the 14th amendment guarantees that states must give minors/juveniles/kids accused of crimes their due process rights found in Amendments 5 and 6. Here are the due process procedures the Court said Arizona must give to juveniles as well as adults:
Notice of Charges. Both Gerald and his parents should have received written notice of the charges against him. That notice should have been delivered far enough in advance to allow time to prepare a defense.
Right to Counsel. Gerald and his parents should have been told that they had a right to a lawyer, and that one would be appointed for them if they could not afford one.
Right to Remain Silent. The Court said Gerald did not have to testify against himself. His confession could not be used against him unless it was obtained properly.
Right to Confrontation. Without a valid confession, only testimony from witnesses who had been sworn in could be used against Gerald, and he had a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
REMEMBER that Bill of Rights originally only applied to limiting federal government, not state governments. The first amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” not the states. The Supreme Court case Baron v. Baltimore in 1833 upheld this concept. SO, the 14th amendment finally allows court challenges to make sure the bill of rights protects you from STATE governments, but also that you aren’t discriminated against because of your membership in any minority group. (Like being a child/minor/juvenile under the age of 18)
The 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." With the in Re Gault case, the court ruled that STATES cannot deny children/kids/minors the right to due process found in the 5th and 6th amendments.
Please be sure to complete your G.O. on this case before moving on!