In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 20 (1967). The case was argued by Norman Dorsen in favor of the juveniles. In the landmark ruling, one of the most important rights given to the juveniles is the right to attorney as stipulated in the US Bill of Rights. 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. After Ms. Cook filed a complaint, Mr. Gault and his friend, Ronald Lewis, were taken to … They ruled that Gerald's due process rights were violated. 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. The petition was not served on Gault or his parents.  Judge McGhee had said "she didn't have to be present. This site is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. This means the judge is putting the court in charge of the child, and taking that power away from the child's parents. MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 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. How does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel have an impact on law-abiding citizens? However, these rulings did not apply to children who were being tried in juvenile courts. 116. Because of this, there was no proof of what Gault or Judge McGhee said during these hearings. Syllabus. ", Every state has its own laws about their juvenile courts. These are called "juvenile courts. This page was last changed on 3 March 2020, at 15:54. Oral Argument - December 06, 1966; Opinions. , The Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the Gaults. Judge McGhee usually worked in the Gila County Superior Court (an adult court), but was working in the juvenile court that day. Decided May 15, 1967.  On December 16, 1966, they went before the Supreme Court. , At the end of the hearing, Judge McGhee said he would think about what to do, and sent Gault back to jail. Decided by Warren Court . They had two main arguments. When Gault’s mother did not find Gault at home, she sent his older brother looking for him. In re Gault. These protections apply to all juveniles in the United States, not just Arizona. When Mrs. Gault arrived at the Detention Home, she was told that a hearing was scheduled in juvenile court the following day. The Gaults' lawyer questioned Judge McGhee about the legal reasons for his actions. Syllabus ; View Case ; Appellant Gault .  It ruled that Judge McGhee had enough evidence and legal reasons to send Gault to jail. They argued that Gerald's conviction was not legal because he was not given the due process rights in the Constitution. IN RE GAULT ET AL. 2d 527, fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault was committed to a reform school until age twenty-one for allegedly making an obscene phone call to a neighbor.  McGhee ordered Gault to be sent to the State Industrial School[a] until he turned 21, unless the court decided to let him out before then. IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Decided May 15, 1967. Not only was Mrs. Cook not present, but no transcript or recording was made, and no one was sworn in prior to testifying. May 15, 1967. They eventually learned of Gault’s arrest from the family of Ronald Lewis. 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. Nobody ever explained why he was kept in jail or why he was let go. Gault was questioned by the judge and there are conflicting accounts as to what, if anything, Gault admitted.  They ruled that Juvenile Codes had to include due process rights. 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).