United States Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court is the echelon of the judicial system that handles new cases and cases that appear to be complicated that require a more in-depth interpretation of the constitution to come up with a neutral decision. In re Gault is one of such claims. The case discusses the right to procedural rights to juveniles to ascertain the fair trial process.

Part A: Description of the Case

In re Gault is a case that involved a 15-year-old boy (Gerald Gault) as the defendant and Mrs. Cook as the plaintiff. Mrs. Cook filed a complaint against Gerald for having abused her over the phone. Following the suit, Gerald and his friend Ronald Lewis were arrested and detained in one of the Children Detention Homes in Arizona. At the time when the arrest was conducted, Gault (Gerald) was still under a probation of a case in which Gerald and another minor had been accused of stealing a wallet from a purse that belonged to some woman.

During the second arrest, both parents to Gerald were out for work. However, the officer who executed the arrest did not leave any notice for the parents regarding the arrest Gerald. So when the parents came back and did not find Gerald at home, they looked for him from the neighborhood and later on learned that he had been arrested from the family of Gault’s friend.

When Mrs. Gault visited the Detention Home, she was informed that hearing was scheduled the following day in the juvenile Court (Mcquiller, 2017). The police who arrested Gault then proceeded to file a petition on the same day of his arrest. Both Gault and the parents did not get a copy of the request, as is expected.  So the appeal remained concealed to the Gaults till August 1964 during the habeas corpus hearing of the Gault case. The fact that the defendant and his family were not served with the petition raised the question on the legality of that first hearing. It was held in the habeas corpus hearing that the June hearing was illegal since there was no witness to testify not any recorded transcription in that capacity. In the absence of any registered witnesses nor the plaintiff, Gault was grilled by the judge, and there is no clear record of Gault’s response to the judge. Gault continued to stay in the detention home even after the hearing. He took up to three days and was released. Upon the release, the parents were informed that there was another hearing set for June 15 (Mcquiller, 2017).

Even during the second hearing, Mrs. Cook did not surface in the Court as a plaintiff to testify her allegations and to ascertain if actually, Gault is the boy she had accused of abusing her over the phone.  During this hearing, the officers handling the probe reported that Gerald was guilty of lewd phone calls. Gault was then sentenced for six-year juvenile detention for a case that would, at maximum, take an adult two months jail term and a fifty dollars fine. Again this report was not disclosed to the Gaults

Following the directions that the case made, the Gaults applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The application was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gaults were left with the Supreme Court of the United States as the only hope. Consequently, they proceeded to the Supreme Court and applied for hearing. The Supreme Court of the US accepted to hear the case with the view of determining the procedural rights of a juvenile delinquent.

Part B: The Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Gault

After listening to the case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision Arizona County superior court. In a split decision in which eight people voted in favor of Gerald: the Supreme Court consequently ruled that the decision to hold Gault in the industrial school of Arizona State was against the provisions of the Sixth Amendment. Along this line, the Supreme Court argued that holding Gerald in custody for that long was a total deprivation and denial since he had been denied his procedural rights. In its reasoning, the Court also noted that every person convicted of any case is entitled to fundamental rights and that the due process should be followed.

Consequently, the eight judges opined that due process is a fundamental right and not a privilege and every human being is entitled to enjoy such freedom. Besides, the Court also noted that were it that Gerald had attained the age of majority he would have been allowed access to procedural rights to safeguard his rights since such provisions were available for adults (Marlo, & Benekos, 2017). Therefore, the Court conducted an audit of the juvenile court system and concluded that though there are legitimate reasons for treating juveniles differently from adult convicts. The minors that are convicted of delinquency and incarcerations are equally entitled to procedural rights as provided for in the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment. Thus the Supreme Court in 8-1 decision held that all juvenile cases were supposed to be determined in light of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which among other things allows juveniles to be served with notices regarding their claims, freedom to an attorney, as well as giving the juvenile opportunity for cross-examination. However, Justice Stewart dissented to the determinations of the other judges on the bench during the case. In his dissenting voice, Stewart posited that juvenile parole was meant for corrective measures and should not be punitive. Consequently, procedural rights that safeguard criminals during trials are not supposed to apply during young trials (Marlo, & Benekos, 2017).

Part C: Significance of the Case

The ruling in the case of Gerald Gault of 1964 transformed the juvenile courts through the establishment of procedural rights which accrued to the juvenile defendants in trials for juvenile delinquency. As envisaged in this case, the due process rights included but not limited to the power of attorney, entitlement to a full hearing of the case, and f to notice of charges (Scarinci, & Hollenbeck, 2017). The Court provided that minors, just like adults, have the right to be assisted by a lawyer in their cases. Further, through the ruling made by the Supreme Court on this matter, the accused juveniles were allowed to be served with notice of arrest. The verdict also helped in creating an elaborate integration and institutionalization of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. For instance, today, the American constitution has provisions for the right to counsel for the accused. Away from the legal jurisprudence, the case is also seen as a landmark case since it created a lot of awareness and insight to the youth on their rights, freedoms, and privileges that they are entitled to, even at times when they are under arrest. In re, Gault also helped in strengthening the advocacy for human rights and the creation of civil societies to champion the rights of the youth (Scarinci, & Hollenbeck, 2017).

Section D: Personal Analysis

I fully support the ruling of the Supreme Court on how the juvenile was being treated. Through the decision by the majority of the judges in the Supreme Court created a leveled paling ground in which the law protects both the youth and the poor. In addition, ii feel that this ruling also brought injustice to the Gaults. Since the judicial system is expected to be non-partisan in discharging their duties, I think that the move by the Supreme Court was in tandem with the vision and hope of the judiciary. The determination not only ended the court battle between the Gaults and Mrs. Cook but also relieved the Gaults from pressure and stressing situations. Further, from the ruling, precedence was also set that has contributed immensely in shaping up the juvenile judicial landscape (Tannenhaus, 2017). I also feel that the wisdom of the Supreme Court judges also helped in strengthening the procedural rights that are guaranteed to an individual, thereby helping in citrating awareness to the parents and their kids on the juvenile rights.

 

 

Mcquiller, L. W (May 3, 2017). In re Gault. Wiley Online Library.  Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0008, 1-4

Marlo, A. V & Benekos, P. J (2017). Reaffirming Juvenile Justice: From Gault to Montgomery. New York, NY: Routledge

 

Scarinci, D. & Hollenbeck, S (October 13, 2017). In Re Gault establishes due process rights for juveniles. Constitutional Law Reporter. Accessed at: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2017/…/in-re-gault-due-process/

Tannenhaus, D.S. (2017). The Constitutional Rights of Children: In re Gault and Juvenile Justice. (50th Anniversary edition ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. muse.jhu.edu/book/56946.