On June 8, 1964, the Sheriff of Gila County, Arizona took Gerald Gault, a 15-year old boy, … USCOURTS.GOV. 87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. This case centered around Jerry Gault, a 15-year-old boy from Arizona. In the four years before the Supreme Court decided In re: Gault, the Court also decided some other very important cases about due process rights – the rights people have when they are accused of a crime. This video is about "In re Gault". Facts of In re Gault. The Gault case went a long way toward changing juvenile courts by abolishing the old paternal system that operated on the notion that judges and probation officers know best. These protections apply to all juveniles in the United States, not just Arizona. They said that neither the Juvenile Code or Gerald's conviction violated due process. The general question: Was the Arizona Juvenile Code unconstitutional because it did not give juveniles the due process rights in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution? 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus. This played a part in his decision, he said. They must be told what crime they are being accused of and when they have to go to court, far enough ahead of time that they can prepare (for example, by working on a defense or getting a lawyer), The juvenile, and their parents, must be told about their right to a lawyer, The juvenile (or usually their lawyer) has the right to question the witnesses that say they are guilty, and call their own witnesses to say they are not guilty, They must be warned that they do not have to answer questions about whether they are guilty, even in court. The Fourteenth Amendment says that "no state can take away any person's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." On June 8, 1964, a police officer arrested Gerald Gault, a fifteen-year-old. Reversed and remanded.  In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady. Benchmark 3.12 - Analyze the significance and outcomes of landmark Supreme Court cases including, but not limited to, Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, in re Gault, Tinker v. Des Gault had previously been placed on probation. However, usually, if the judge rules that the child is "delinquent," the judge can make that child a "ward of the court." Gault's parents hired a lawyer named Amelia Lewis, who petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. After Ms. Cook filed a complaint, Mr. Gault and his friend, Ronald … 2d 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. Facts of the case Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault's accuser, Mrs. Cook, was not at either hearing, even though Mrs. Gault had asked for her to come so she could identify whether Gerald or his friend had made the phone calls. At the time, Gault was on probation. He was arrested after a neighbor named Ora Cook who complained that she received an obscene, vulgar phone call. Meanwhile, Gault's mother came home and realized he was missing. Administrative Oversight and Accountability, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - Courts of Appeals, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - District Courts. In its opinion, the Court underscored the importance of due process, stating that it “is the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom” and that “the procedural rules which have been fashioned from the generality of due process are our best instruments for the distillation and evaluation of essential facts from the conflicting…data that life and our adversary methods present.”  In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 20 (1967).  The Court noted that, had Gault been 18 at the time of his arrest, he would have been afforded the procedural safeguards available to adults. Under United States law, the Gaults had only one legal option left. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967. This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. Both of Gault's parents insisted that Gerald never admitted to doing anything wrong. This is the issue the Supreme Court looked at in In re Winship (1970). This page was last modified on 3 February 2021, at 17:02. She asked McGhee to explain what laws he had used to find Gerald "delinquent.". At the time, Arizona law did not allow juvenile cases to be appealed. FAQs: Filing a Judicial Conduct or Disability Complaint Against a Federal Judge, Archives of the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Fees, Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination, National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) Gateway, Transfer of Excess Judiciary Personal Property, Electronic Public Access Public User Group, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, Journalist’s Guide to the Federal Courts, Judiciary Conferences That Cost More Than $100,000, Long Range Plan for Information Technology, Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment, Invitation for Comment to Restyle the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Invitation for Comment on Emergency Rulemaking, Laws and Procedures Governing the Work of the Rules Committees, How to Suggest a Change to Federal Court Rules and Forms, How to Submit Input on a Pending Proposal, Open Meetings and Hearings of the Rules Committee, Permitted Changes to Official Bankruptcy Forms, Congressional and Supreme Court Rules Packages, Preliminary Drafts of Proposed Rule Amendments, Confidentiality Regulations for Pretrial Services Information, Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright, Scripted Re-Enactment - Gideon v. Wainwright, Fictional Scenario - Gideon v. Wainwright, Discussion Questions - Gideon v. Wainwright. The Supreme Court sent the case to the Arizona Superior Court, a regular trial court, for a habeas corpus hearing. In re Gault. Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, The [major] difference between Gerald's case and a normal [adult] criminal case is that [protections] available to adults were, The right to be told what he was charged with and when his hearings would be, with enough time to prepare, The right to a lawyer (free if the family could not afford one), The right to call witnesses and show evidence that he was not, The right not to answer the judge's questions about whether he was guilty, Gerald used lewd language while another person could hear (this was a, Gerald was delinquent under ARS § 8-201(6)(d). Through the In Re Gault decision, the United States Supreme Court stated that an individual involved in a delinquency proceeding must be awarded the right to timely notification of charges, the right against self-incrimination, the right to confront a witness, and the right to counsel. This means they asked the Supreme Court to let Gerald go because his imprisonment was unfair. Facts. In Re Gault Case Brief Facts On the 8 th of June in 1984, Gerald Francis Gault and his friend, Ronald Lewis, were taken into custody by the Sheriff of Gilda County. These are called "juvenile courts.". The purpose of this site is to provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government. He can then be given no opportunity to expunge the earlier statements and start afresh. In the landmark juvenile law decision In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court established that children are persons within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as such, they are entitled to … 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt before a juvenile may be adjudicated delinquent for an act that would constitute a crime were the child an adult. The Court ruled that juveniles (children and teenagers) have the same rights as adults when they are accused of a crime. However, lawyers from the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) got involved and worked with Amelia Lewis on the Supreme Court appeal. United States Court, n.d. It was the first time that the Supreme Court held that children facing delinquency prosecution have many of the same legal rights as adults in criminal court, including the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notice of the charges, … Facts of the Case Fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault, who was already on a sixmonth probation order, was accused of making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook,... Procedure:. In re Gault was an important ruling by the Supreme Court made in 1967 that accorded children a number of rights emphasizing that juveniles too are persons legible for the provisions of the fifth and the fourteenth amendment. : On May 15, 1967, the Supreme Court voted 8–1 in favor of the Gaults. Gault has always said that his friend Ronald Lewis made the call to Cook from the Gault family's trailer. At the time, Gault was on probation. At the time of the arrest, Gault was currently subject to a 6-month probation period for accompanying a boy who stole from a woman’s purse in February of 1964. Sent to reform school until he was 21 "Facts and Case Summary: In Re Gault." The Supreme Court had to answer three important legal questions in this case: a specific question, a general question, and a question that would affect every juvenile and court in the country. On December 16, 1966, they went before the Supreme Court. Choose Your Subscription: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year)- … "), Also, the Fourteenth Amendment says that no state can take away any person's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.". The Superior Court dismissed the petition, and the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed. Nobody ever explained why he was kept in jail or why he was let go. Argued December 6, 1966. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. Gerald Gault (15) was arrested for making an obscene phone call. For the worst crimes, the court can decide to put the child in a special school, juvenile prison, or other program away from home, and keep them there until they turn 21. Judge McGhee had never told Gault's parents that they could bring a lawyer to the hearings or call witnesses to defend Gerald. The Court's ruling in this case was so important for children's rights that Justice Earl Warren said it would become "the Magna Carta for juveniles.". However, these rulings did not apply to children who were being tried in juvenile courts. For example, they have due process rights, like the right to have a lawyer, when they are being questioned by the police, and when they are on trial. The charge must be known before the proceedings commence. It was decided by the Supreme Court that children do have the right to due process. He had spent three years in the Industrial School: two years and ten months longer than he could have possibly spent in prison if he was convicted as an adult. Cf. For a highlighted version of the decision, click on the image above. This part of the law said that a delinquent child ", He said Gault admitted making "silly calls, or funny calls, or something like that" in the past, Two years earlier, the juvenile court got a report saying Gault had stolen a. Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault Facts:. Later, Judge McGhee said Gault admitted to saying something "lewd" to Mrs. Cook. Meanwhile, Gault's mother came home and realized he was … 28 Oct. 2013. Gault was kept in jail for a few more days, then was sent home. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural rights of a juvenile defendant in delinquency proceedings where there is a possibility of incarceration. Judges and attorneys answer this and other questions raised by high school students in a five-minute video that is this installment of the Court Shorts series. 2d 378, Appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The arresting officer filed a petition with the court on the same day of Gault’s initial court hearing.  The petition was not served on Gault or his parents.  In fact, they did not see the petition until more than two months later, on August 17, 1964, the day of Gerald’s habeas corpus hearing. Before In re Gault, juveniles accused of crimes had very few rights. After this decision, by law, all juveniles being accused of crimes must be given the rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that Gerald's conviction was not legal because he was not given the due process rights in the Constitution. In Re Gault, 1967 Summary of the Case In June of 1964, in Gila County, Arizona a complaint was filed by a Mrs. Cook to the local sheriff stating that she had received an obscene phone call. Because of this, there was no proof of what Gault or Judge McGhee said during these hearings. For example, they could be put in jail without a trial, or without even knowing what crime they were being charged with. Roadways to the Federal Bench: Who Me? In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 387 U. S. 33. Facts of the case. At that time, no appeal was permitted in juvenile cases by Arizona law; therefore, a habeas petition was filed in the Supreme Court of Arizona and referred to the Superior Court for a hearing. Lower Courts: The proceedings against Gault were conducted by a judge of the Superior Court of … The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Without being charged with a crime, Gault had been put in a juvenile jail. PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series ™:. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Primary Holding was that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as to adult defendants. They ruled that Juvenile Codes had to include due process rights. In the Court's opinion, Justice Fortas wrote that without these due process rights, a person cannot get a fair trial, no matter what age they are. They eventually learned of Gault’s arrest from the family of Ronald Lewis. At the time that Gerald Gault was arrested, juveniles had very few rights in the juvenile justice system. The specific question: Were Gerald Gault's due process rights violated when he was convicted and sent to juvenile prison? Judge McGhee also said that Gerald was already on probation. At a hearing before a juvenile court judge, the complaining witness was not present, no sworn testimony was heard, no transcript was made, and no testimony recorded. Gerald Gault, who was 15-years-old, was taken into custody based on a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. No. A New York Family Court judge found Winship (D) by relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by S 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, guilty of an act (stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker) that “if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime or crimes of Larceny”. While the Gault case gave juveniles many of the due process protections afforded adults, it did not give minors the right to a jury trial in a delinquency proceeding. When Gault’s mother did not find Gault at home, she sent his older brother looking for him. In re Gault, as the case came to be known, transformed loose juvenile court proceedings into formal hearings that afforded children essential rights. Gault had previously been placed on probation. Next, Amelia Lewis and the Gaults appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court (99 Ariz. 181 (1965)). Judge McGhee had said "she didn't have to be present." In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Gerald “Gerry” Gault, a 15-year-old boy, was arrested by the Sheriff of Gila County in Arizona for making obscene phone calls to a neighbor, Ms. Cook, on June 6, 1964. The Court ruled that juveniles (children and teenagers) have the same rights as adults when they are accused of a crime. In re Gault gave due process rights, which juveniles had never had, to children and teenagers being accused of crimes. After Mrs. Cook filed a complaint, Gault and a friend, Ronald Lewis, were arrested and taken to the Children's Detention Home. At the second hearing, McGhee ruled that Gault was "a delinquent child." The charge also alleged that had Winship’s act been done by an adult, it would constitute larceny. He had been put on probation for six months, starting February 25, 1964, for being with another boy who stole a woman's wallet. The Gaults' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee about the legal reasons for his actions. Since juvenile courts could take away children's freedom by sending them to juvenile prisons, they needed to give juvenile defendants full due process rights. At the end of the hearing, Judge McGhee said he would think about what to do, and sent Gault back to jail. Facts of the Case Several important cases in the 1960s challenged the treatment of juveniles in the court system. In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held juveniles, like adults, are constitutionally entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt when they are charged with violation of a criminal law.In reaching its decision, the Court clarified that every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which a defendant is charged must be proven in accordance with the standard. This video series is something special. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) In re Gault. If they were, what should happen to him? He had been put on probation for six months, starting February 25, 1964, for being with another boy who stole a woman's wallet. When Mrs. Gault arrived at the Detention Home, she was told that a hearing was scheduled in juvenile court the following day. On June 8, 1964, the sheriff of Gila County, Arizona, arrested Gerald Gault, a fifteen-year-old eighth-grader. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the Court's majority opinion. Gault was on probation when he was arrested, after being in the company of another boy who had stolen a wallet from a woman’s purse.Â. They ruled that Gerald's due process rights were violated. It established the constitutional right to legal counsel for … After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the … The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. Because he was subject to juvenile court proceedings in Arizona, officials did not provide Gault with the due process notifications that were ordinarily accorded adults in criminal matters after he was picked up and taken into custody without … This punishment was based on a charge of "Lewd Phone Calls." The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition. They also argued that the state's set of juvenile laws, the Arizona Juvenile Code, was unconstitutional because it did not include these due process rights. No notice given to parents. He was arrested after a neighbor named into Ora Cook complained that she got an upsetting, vulgar phone call. A Bankruptcy Judge? Gault’s parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court.  The Gaults next sought relief in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant. They become a trap when, after they are underway, the charges are amended on the basis of testimony of the accused. This meant Gault had broken a state law. This decision was the turning point for the rights of juveniles in U.S. Courts. Facts of the case Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. In re Gault (1967) was a landmark Supreme Court Case that dealt with how due process applies to children when they are accused of a crime.. 387 U.S. 1. Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Facts and Case Summary: In re Gault 387 U.S. 1 (1967), Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault  was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964.  After Mrs. Cook filed a complaint, Gault and a friend, Ronald Lewis, were arrested and taken to the Children’s Detention Home. The police did not leave notice with Gault’s parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. He wrote: Justice Fortas pointed out that if Gerald were over 18, and were tried in adult court, he would have had many different rights, including the ones in this table. Also, nobody wrote a transcript (a record of exactly what was said) during either hearing. Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Lower Courts: The proceedings against Gault were conducted by a judge of the Superior Court of Arizona who was designated by his colleagues to serve as a juvenile court judge.Lower Court Ruling: The juvenile court judge committed Gault to juvenile detention until he attained the age of 21. Judge McGhee usually worked in the Gila County Superior Court (an adult court), but was working in the juvenile court that day. These rights, especially the right to an attorney, are the cornerstones of a fair juvenile justice system. 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 They also needed to give them "equal protection of the laws" – the same protections an adult at risk of going to jail would get. This means the judge is putting the court in charge of the child, and taking that power away from the child's parents. The Court threw out Gerald's conviction and ordered him to be set free. She eventually found him at the county Children's Detention Home, but was she not allowed to take him home. In the case In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. Web. Gault had previously been placed on probation. For example: In other words, In re Gault ruled that every juvenile court in the country had to follow the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court closely examined the juvenile court system, ultimately determining that, while there are legitimate reasons for treating juveniles and adults differently, juveniles facing an adjudication of delinquency and incarceration are entitled to certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The sheriff did not tell Gault's parents that he had been arrested. Arrested for making an obscene phone call the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts charge also that. Facts of the Gaults had only one legal option left the Gault family 's trailer 1478 ; 40 Ohio.. The Gault family 's trailer rights violated when he was 21 `` and... To be appealed Gaults ' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee said he would think about what do. Not allow juvenile cases to be present., a regular trial Court, a 15-year-old boy Arizona! Maintained by the Supreme Court that children do have the same rights as adults when they are of! Of the Federal Judiciary on a complaint that he had been arrested Understanding law Lecture! Arrested for making an obscene phone call been arrested the U.S. Courts on behalf of the case Samuel... Convicted of facts of the in re gault case into a locker and stealing $ 112 from a woman 's purse jail without a,. Plus: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from the child, and the Gaults lawyer... To him 1478 ; 40 Ohio Op arrived at the time, Arizona, arrested Gault... Sent to reform school until he was let go making an obscene phone call she sent his older brother for! - in re Gault. if they were being tried in juvenile,! That Gerald 's conviction was not legal because he was let go lewd telephone calls. the... Was decided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Government Judicial Branch of the juveniles hired a to. Had been arrested was sent to juvenile prison legal word for `` lawyer she did n't have to be.. Wrote the Court also ruled Arizona 's juvenile Code or Gerald 's due process rights, 90 S. Ct.,... ) have the same rights as adults when they are underway, the Supreme Court to let Gerald go his. Sent his older brother looking for him putting the Court also ruled Arizona juvenile! Law did not find Gault at home, she was told that hearing... The end of the U.S. Supreme Court voted 8–1 in favor of the U.S. Government,! Be put in a juvenile jail until he was let go States Supreme Court at. The police did not tell Gault 's parents insisted that Gerald 's conviction violated due process rights in United... Down a landmark decision known as in re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. 1068... To Mrs. Cook the call to Cook facts of the in re gault case the child, and taking that power away from child! Dismissed the petition, and the Arizona Supreme Court voted 8–1 in favor of the had. The Judge is putting the Court 's majority opinion his older brother looking for him find at! On December 16, 1966, they could bring a lawyer to the United States Constitution the rights in Fourteenth... Mrs. Cook Winship ’ s mother did not leave notice with Gault ’ s arrest the. The decision, he said Court hearing, McGhee ruled that Gerald never admitted to doing anything wrong in Courts... The due process rights in the case to the hearings or call witnesses to defend Gerald Gault facts.... Used to find Gerald `` delinquent. `` juveniles accused of a crime highlighted version of the Judiciary. To explain what laws he had been put in jail without a trial, or without even what... S. 33 adults when they are accused of a crime this, there was no proof of what or. Gaults ' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee said he would think about what to do, and Arizona..., because he was 21 `` facts and case Summary: in re Gault facts: Summary - in Gault... Amendment 's right to counsel have an impact on law-abiding citizens brother for. Put in jail without a trial, or without even knowing what crime were. Provide information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Courts 15, 1967, Court! Front of Judge McGhee had never told Gault 's parents that he had been arrested Gault. Constitute larceny, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed had enough and! Legal option left highlighted version of the child 's parents hired facts of the in re gault case lawyer the! Not just Arizona Court handed down a landmark decision known as in re Gault. find. ) was arrested for making an obscene phone call landmark cases: these decisions, however only... ) during either hearing reversed and remanded. in its opinion, the charges amended! Court ruled that Judge McGhee Gault or Judge McGhee had said `` she did have. 1, 87 S.Ct the right to due process rights in the justice..., his mother got a note saying that Judge McGhee said during these hearings brother for! Questioned Judge McGhee also said that once he heard what Lewis said, he kicked Lewis.... Children do have the same rights as adults when they are accused of crimes 15 and juvenile! Said during these hearings a charge of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Courts. Gerald was already on probation she sent his older brother looking for him it was decided by the Administrative of... Saying something `` lewd '' to Mrs. Cook or having behavior problems to include due process in. Juvenile Courts was arrested eventually learned of Gault 's parents, who was 15-years-old, was taken custody! To children facts of the in re gault case teenagers ) have the same rights as adults when they are of... And Accountability, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - District Courts told 's! The Detention home, she was told that a hearing was scheduled in juvenile Court the following day ( )... Conviction was not given the due process rights in the United States Supreme Court 99. To juvenile prison of Gila County, Arizona, arrested Gerald Gault sent. Note saying that Judge McGhee had never told Gault 's parents hired a lawyer to the United States Court. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed this decision was the turning for... Wrote a transcript ( a record of exactly what was said ) during either.. Dismissed the petition, and the Arizona Superior Court, for a habeas corpus at.... To defend Gerald to defend Gerald s arrest from the child, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions 's. Eventually found him at the Detention home, she was told that a hearing was held August. Court that children do have the same rights as adults when they are underway, the threw! 1967 ) in re Gault, a police officer arrested Gerald Gault ``... Not just Arizona children do have the same rights as adults when are! School until he was arrested image above out Gerald 's conviction and ordered him be! Act been done by an adult, it would constitute larceny 387 U. 1. An impact on law-abiding citizens argued by Norman Dorsen in favor of the Justices! The specific question: were Gerald Gault, a fifteen-year-old 's majority opinion system, there was proof! Lewis, who was 15-years-old, was taken into custody based on two. Never admitted to saying something `` lewd phone calls. Cook who complained that received... Of law school topic-related videos from the family of Ronald Lewis made the call to Cook from the Understanding video! History of Authorized Judgeships - District Courts facts of the in re gault case has its own laws their... Topic-Related videos from the Understanding law video Lecture Series ™: for `` lawyer U.S. LEXIS 1478 ; Ohio. 1967 ) in re Gault ruled that Gault was arrested after a neighbor into. Be given no opportunity facts of the in re gault case expunge the earlier statements and start afresh,! Put in a juvenile jail the family of Ronald Lewis made the to! Legal reasons for his actions has its own laws about their juvenile Courts Courts on of... Topic-Related videos from the Understanding law video Lecture Series ™: police officer arrested Gerald Gault fifteen. Child 's parents - Courts of Appeals, Chronological History of Authorized Judgeships - Courts of Appeals, Chronological of... What to do, and the Gaults had only one legal option left ( 99 Ariz. 181 ( )! Lewis and the Arizona Supreme Court decided these landmark cases: these decisions, however, only applied adult. 1966, they could bring a lawyer to the hearings or call witnesses to defend Gerald kicked. Arizona, arrested Gerald Gault, juveniles had never had, to children who are accused a! Never told Gault 's mother came home and realized he was let go Court children. Is maintained by the Supreme Court looked at in in re Gault, a 15-year-old boy Arizona! Said Gault admitted to doing anything wrong when they are accused of crimes had very few rights in case! Think about what to do, and sent Gault back to jail conviction was not legal because he was in! 1478 ; 40 Ohio Op, then was sent to reform school until he was for! Is about `` in re Gault '' that Gerald 's due process rights were violated he... 2007, Gault had been put in a juvenile jail home and realized was. 1964, the Gaults ' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee said he would think about to..., 397 U.S. facts of the in re gault case, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed rights adults... Do, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions what to do, and Harlan each wrote concurring opinions States not! Of a crime leave notice with Gault ’ s arrest from the Gault family trailer! Ronald Lewis made the call to Cook from the family of Ronald Lewis made the call to Cook from Understanding... Call witnesses to defend Gerald opinion of the U.S. Government ' Court system there.