In re Gault

Last updated

In re Gault
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 6, 1966
Decided May 15, 1967
Full case name In re Gault et al.
Citations387 U.S. 1 ( more )
87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2d 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2d 378
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Supreme Court of Arizona
Holding
Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
MajorityFortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Brennan
ConcurrenceBlack
ConcurrenceWhite
Concur/dissentHarlan
DissentStewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amends. VI, XIV

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 juvenile defendants 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.

Contents

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, his friend Ronald Lewis made the call from the Gault family's trailer. Gerald claims that Lewis had asked to use the telephone while Gerald was getting ready for work. Then, not yet knowing to whom Lewis was speaking, Gault said, "I heard him, ahem, using some pretty vulgar language... so I – all I did was walk out, took the phone off him, hung it up, and told him – I said, 'Hey, there's the door. Get out.'" [4] At the time, Gerald was on probation after having been previously found in the company of another boy who had stolen a woman's purse. [5]

Judge Robert McGhee of the Gila County superior court, acting as a juvenile court judge, [6] presided over Gerald's preliminary hearing the next morning, [3] which he ended by saying he would "think about it," and Gerald remained in custody for several more days until he was released, without explanation. On Gault's release, his mother received a note from the superintendent of the detention home informing her that "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." That was the family's only notification of the hearing. [7]

At the hearing, McGhee found "that said minor is a delinquent child, and that said minor is of the age of 15 years" and ordered him confined at the State Industrial School "for the period of his minority [that is, until 21], unless sooner discharged by due process of law." The charge listed in the report prepared by the county probation officers was "Lewd Phone Calls." [8] Had Gault been convicted as an adult for a violation of ARS § 13-377, the punishment was a maximum prison sentence of two months and a fine of $5 to $50. [9]

Gault's accuser, Cook, was not present at either hearing; McGhee said "she didn't have to be present." [10] More than forty years later, Gault said, "I still don't know what that lady looks like." [4] With no witnesses having been sworn and the court making no transcript of either hearing, those present later disagreed about what had occurred during the June 1964 hearings. In particular, Gault's parents contested McGhee's claim that the teenager had admitted in court to making any of the alleged lewd statements. [7] [10]

Arizona law then permitted no appeal in juvenile cases and Gault's parents petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain their son's release; the Supreme Court referred the case back to McGhee for hearing. On August 17, "McGhee was vigorously cross-examined as to the basis for his actions." [11] He testified:

Well, there is a – I think it amounts to disturbing the peace. I can't give you the section, but I can tell you the law, that when one person uses lewd language in the presence of another person, that it can amount to – and I consider that when a person makes it over the phone, that it is considered in the presence, I might be wrong, that is one section. The other section upon which I consider the boy delinquent is Section 8-201, Subsection (d), habitually involved in immoral matters. [12]

The first law McGhee mentioned was Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) § 13-377, which made a misdemeanor of using "vulgar, abusive or obscene language" while "in the presence or hearing of any woman or child." [11] Violating that law, then, would meet the ARS § 8-201(6)(a) criterion for classification as a "delinquent child," a "child who has violated a law of the state or an ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision thereof." [13] The alternate criterion McGhee cited was that of ARS § 8-201(6)(d): "A child who habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others." [13] McGhee found Gault delinquent for (1) on one occasion using obscene language on the telephone with a woman and (2) being "habitually" dangerous. The evidence for the latter, according to McGhee's testimony, was that (a) two years earlier there had been a vague report, which the court had not acted upon due to, in McGhee's words, a "lack of material foundation" concerning the theft of a baseball glove; and (b) Gault's admission that in the past he had made telephone calls the judge described as "silly calls, or funny calls, or something like that." [9] On that basis, Judge McGhee ordered the teenager to serve six years in juvenile detention.

After McGhee dismissed the habeas petition, the Gaults appealed to the state Supreme Court (99 Ariz. 181 (1965)), based on the following:

  1. the Arizona Juvenile Code was unconstitutional because it (a) did not require that either the accused or his parents be notified of the specific charges against him; (b) did not require that the parents be given notice of hearings; and (c) allowed no appeal; [9] and
  2. the Juvenile Court's actions constituted a denial of due process because of (a) the lack of notification of the charges against Gault or of the hearings; (b) the court's failure to inform the Gaults of their right to counsel, right to confront the accuser, and right to remain silent; (c) the admission of "unsworn hearsay testimony;" and (d) the lack of any records of the proceedings. [14]

The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The court acknowledged that the constitutionality of the Juvenile Court proceedings required adherence to due process [15] and that the Arizona Juvenile Code, in general, and the Gault proceedings, in specific, did not violate due process. [14] The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, where it was argued by NYU Law professor Norman Dorsen, a former Harlan clerk (OT '57) who later became president of the ACLU.

Decision

In an 8–1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Gault's commitment to the State Industrial School was a violation of the Sixth Amendment since he had been denied the right to an attorney, had not been formally notified of the charges against him, had not been informed of his right against self-incrimination, and had had no opportunity to confront his accusers.

Justice Potter Stewart was the sole dissenter. He argued that the purpose of juvenile court was correction, not punishment, and so the constitutional procedural safeguards for criminal trials should not apply to juvenile trials.

Related Research Articles

<i>Miranda</i> warning Notification given by U.S. police to criminal suspects on their rights while in custody

In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants, to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Potter Stewart</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1958 to 1981

Potter Stewart was an American lawyer and judge who served as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1958 to 1981. During his tenure, he made major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile court</span> Court to try minors for legal offenses

Juvenile court, also known as young offender's court or children's court, is a tribunal having special authority to pass judgements for crimes committed by children who have not attained the age of majority. In most modern legal systems, children who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults who have committed the same offense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Norman Dorsen</span> American lawyer (1930–2017)

Norman Dorsen was the Frederick I. and Grace A. Stokes Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program at the New York University School of Law, where he specialized in Constitutional Law, Civil Liberties, and Comparative Constitutional Law. Previously, he was president of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1976–1991. He was also president of the Society of American Law Teachers, 1972–1973, and president of the U.S. Association of Constitutional Law in 2000.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), was the second substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a probation or parole sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government of Arizona</span> Overview of the government of the U.S. state of Arizona

The government of Arizona is the governmental structure of the state of Arizona as established by the Arizona Constitution. The executive is composed of the Governor, several other statewide elected officials, and the Governor's cabinet. The Arizona Legislature consists of the House of Representatives and Senate. The judiciary is composed of the Arizona Supreme Court and lower courts. There is also local government, consisting of counties, municipalities and special districts.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Under Miranda v. Arizona, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible. Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court and had asserted his desire to have counsel, thus his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. At issue was whether a voluntary admission of incriminating facts in response to police statements made while the defendant was in custody and outside the presence of his lawyer constituted a waiver of this right to counsel.

The Jordan Brown case involves Jordan Brown, who was initially charged at 11 as an adult in the fatal shooting of his father's fiancée, Kenzie Marie Houk, 26, in New Beaver, Pennsylvania, which occurred on the morning of February 20, 2009. Jordan was interviewed by Pennsylvania State Police twice that day and arrested before sunrise the next morning. The Lawrence County District Attorney's Office initially filed the charges in adult court because that is required in Pennsylvania homicide cases, regardless of a defendant's age. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office then took over prosecution of the case. After Brown had spent more than three years in a juvenile detention facility in Erie, Pennsylvania, while Pennsylvania courts deliberated his status, Brown was tried as a juvenile and found guilty of being delinquent by a judge on April 13, 2012.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), was a US Supreme Court case that ruled that the powers to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations rest with the US federal government, rather than that of the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, is a unanimous 1982 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his discrimination complaint adjudged by Illinois's Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), which had dismissed it for its own failure to meet a deadline. The decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding to the contrary two years prior.

Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving substantive due process in the context of paternity law. Splitting five to four, the Court rejected a challenge to a California law that presumed that a married woman's child was a product of that marriage, holding that the due-process rights of a man who claimed to be a child's biological father had not been violated.

References

  1. ↑ In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 4 (1967)Primary Holding
  2. ↑ In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 4 (1967). Fortas noted that it was sufficient "to say that the remarks or questions put to her were of the irritatingly offensive, adolescent, sex variety."
  3. 1 2 387 U.S. at 5.
  4. 1 2 Gerald Gault, in National Constitution Center, "Children under the Constitution" panel discussion, November 7, 2007. Archived at the Wayback Machine.
  5. ↑ Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault
  6. ↑ 387 U.S. at 5, n.1.
  7. 1 2 387 U.S. at 6.
  8. ↑ 387 U.S. at 7–8.
  9. 1 2 3 387 U.S. at 9.
  10. 1 2 387 U.S. at 7.
  11. 1 2 387 U.S. at 8.
  12. ↑ 387 U.S. at 8, n.5.
  13. 1 2 387 U.S. at 9, n.6.
  14. 1 2 387 U.S. at 10.
  15. ↑ 387 U.S. at 12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.