In re winship (1970)
- •
The Constitutional Rights of Children: In re Gault and Juvenile Justice (Hardback)
FSFirm sale title. No returns accepted.
When fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault of Globe, Arizona, allegedly made an obscene phone call to a neighbour, he was arrested by the local police, who failed to inform his parents. After a hearing in which the neighbour didn't even testify, Gault was promptly sentenced to six years in a juvenile ""boot camp""--for an offence that would have cost an adult only two months. Even in a nation fed up with juvenile delinquency, that sentence seemed over the top and inspired a spirited defence on Gault's b...
When fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault of Globe, Arizona, allegedly made an obscene phone call to a neighbour, he was arrested by the local police, who failed to inform his parents. After a hearing in which the neighbour didn't even testify, Gault was promptly sentenced to six years in a juvenile ""boot camp""--for an offence that would have cost an adult only two months. Even in a nation fed up with ju
- •
In re Gault
1967 United States Supreme Court case
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which held the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juveniledefendants as well as to adult defendants.[1] Juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The court's opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas, a noted proponent of children's rights.
Background
In June 1964, the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona, took 15-year-old Gerald Gault into custody, without notifying Gault's parents, after a neighbor, Ora Cook, complained of receiving an inappropriate and offensive telephone call.[2] After returning home from work that evening to find her son missing, Gault's mother eventually located him at the county jail, but was not permitted to take him home.[3]
According to Gerald
- •
In Re Gault 1967
Appellants: Paul L. Gault and Marjorie Gault, parents of Gerald Francis Gault, a minor
Appellee: State of Arizona
Appellants' Claim: That states must give juvenile defendants the same constitutional rights as adult criminal defendants.
Chief Lawyer for Appellants: Norman Dorsen
Chief Lawyer for Appellee: Frank A. Parks, Assistant Attorney General of Arizona
Justices for the Court: Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren, Byron R. White.
Justices Dissenting:Potter Stewart
Date of Decision: May 15, 1967
Decision: The Supreme Court held that Arizona violated Gault's constitutional rights.
Significance: With Gault, the Supreme Court said juvenile defendants must have notice of the charges against them, notice of their right to have an attorney, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, and the right not to testify against themselves.
Gerald Francis Gault was a boy who lived in Gila County, Arizona. Early in 1964, police arr
Copyright ©cafebee.pages.dev 2025