Supreme Court Cases Period 1 Fall 2015

By: Brenna O’Brien
In re Gault (1967)
Background Information
Gerald Francis Gault, at the age of 15, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. When the police
made arrest of Gault they did not notify the parents. Gerald Gault was later sent to juvenile court and was put into state
industrial school unit until he reached the age of 21.
Constitutional Issue(s)
The proceedings of the juvenile court went against the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court did not
follow the requirements of an adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right
to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against selfincrimination.
Supreme Court Decision (Majority Opinion)
The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These
requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to
counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against selfincrimination.
Precedent
The State Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the writ. Agreeing that the
constitutional guarantee of due process applies to proceedings in which
juveniles are charged as delinquents. The proceedings for juveniles had to
comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Concurring Opinion(s)
Mr. Justice Black wrote that he agrees with the Court that a new system would
practically immunize juveniles from "punishment" for "crimes" in an effort to
save them from youthful indiscretions and stigmas due to criminal charges or
convictions.
Mr. Justice White wrote that he agrees that the privilege against compelled
self-incrimination applies at the adjudicatory stage of juvenile court
proceedings. However he did not find an adequate basis in the record for
determining whether that privilege was violated in this case.
Dissenting Opinion(s)
Mr. Justice Harlan wrote that it depends on the circumstances and that more thought needs to be put into the system and that
due process should be carefully thought out.
Mr. Justice Stewart wrote he believed that the Court's decision is wholly unsound as a matter of constitutional law, and sadly
unwise as a matter of judicial policy.
Sources Cited (MLA)
"In re Gault." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Dec 8, 2015.
Quick Links
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/
26 | Page