376:
a political subdivision thereof." 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." 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." On that basis, Judge McGhee ordered the teenager to serve six years in juvenile detention.
31:
655:
315:, 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. 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.
400:
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 and that the Arizona Juvenile Code, in general, and the Gault proceedings, in specific, did not violate due process.
375:
of using "vulgar, abusive or obscene language" while "in the presence or hearing of any woman or child." 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
346:
don't know what that lady looks like." 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
362:
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
338:
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 , unless sooner discharged by due process of law." The charge listed in the report prepared by
424:
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
318:
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
334:
judge, presided over Gerald's preliminary hearing the next morning, 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
391:
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
387:
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;
127:
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
339:
the county probation officers was "Lewd Phone Calls." 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.
335:
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.
294:
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
432:
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.
363:
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.
358:
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." He testified:
742:
762:
488: (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."
280:
258:
670:
478:
452:
75:
752:
732:
517:
254:
342:
Gault's accuser, Cook, was not present at either hearing; McGhee said "she didn't have to be present." More than forty years later, Gault said, "I
319:
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.
747:
529:
323:" 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.
727:
767:
757:
737:
290:
as well as to adult defendants. Juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same
272:
35:
659:
171:
711:
707:
690:
513:
393:
98:
368:
114:
772:
175:
674:
482:
456:
351:
67:
379:
After McGhee dismissed the habeas petition, the Gaults appealed to the state Supreme Court (
312:
300:
350:
Arizona law then permitted no appeal in juvenile cases and Gault's parents petitioned the
8:
485:
459:
276:
159:
681:
70:
429:
331:
327:
183:
721:
409:
380:
355:
163:
425:
self-incrimination, and had had no opportunity to confront his accusers.
372:
291:
284:
187:
143:
296:
287:
195:
151:
86:
699:
520:" panel discussion, November 7, 2007. Archived at the Wayback Machine.
401:
The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, where it was argued by
82:
412:, a former Harlan clerk (OT '57) who later became president of the
654:
405:
396:
testimony;" and (d) the lack of any records of the proceedings.
30:
54:
743:
United States Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel case law
413:
402:
347:
in court to making any of the alleged lewd statements.
763:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
212:Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Brennan
719:
616:
614:
628:
626:
733:United States criminal due process case law
611:
602:
595:
593:
583:
581:
113:Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965),
571:
569:
567:
548:
546:
534:
496:
494:
635:
623:
555:
753:United States children's rights case law
590:
578:
564:
543:
508:
506:
491:
326:Judge Robert McGhee of the Gila County
720:
18:1967 United States Supreme Court case
748:United States habeas corpus case law
714:" panel discussion, November 7, 2007
530:Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault
503:
271:, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark
367:The first law McGhee mentioned was
13:
371:(ARS) § 13-377, which made a
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
784:
728:United States Supreme Court cases
647:
383:(1965)), based on the following:
653:
29:
768:History of Gila County, Arizona
712:Children under the Constitution
677:1 (1967) is available from:
518:Children under the Constitution
758:1967 in United States case law
523:
468:
442:
1:
738:Confrontation Clause case law
436:
311:In June 1964, the sheriff of
306:
708:National Constitution Center
514:National Constitution Center
7:
419:
10:
789:
700:Oyez (oral argument audio)
253:
248:
240:
232:
224:
216:
208:
203:
137:
132:
126:
121:
109:
104:
94:
62:
49:
42:
28:
23:
369:Arizona Revised Statutes
275:decision which held the
115:Supreme Court of Arizona
89:1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2d 378
299:, a noted proponent of
43:Argued December 6, 1966
392:admission of "unsworn
365:
255:U.S. Const. Amends. VI
176:William J. Brennan Jr.
360:
352:Arizona Supreme Court
313:Gila County, Arizona
45:Decided May 15, 1967
691:Library of Congress
620:387 U.S. at 9, n.6.
608:387 U.S. at 8, n.5.
540:387 U.S. at 5, n.1.
81:87 S. Ct. 1428; 18
277:Due Process Clause
273:U.S. Supreme Court
160:William O. Douglas
148:Associate Justices
117:, Rehearing denied
658:Works related to
512:Gerald Gault, in
301:children's rights
264:
263:
172:John M. Harlan II
780:
704:
698:
695:
689:
686:
680:
657:
642:
639:
633:
630:
621:
618:
609:
606:
600:
597:
588:
585:
576:
573:
562:
561:387 U.S. at 7–8.
559:
553:
550:
541:
538:
532:
527:
521:
510:
501:
498:
489:
472:
466:
446:
322:
133:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
788:
787:
783:
782:
781:
779:
778:
777:
718:
717:
702:
696:
693:
687:
684:
678:
650:
645:
641:387 U.S. at 12.
640:
636:
632:387 U.S. at 10.
631:
624:
619:
612:
607:
603:
598:
591:
586:
579:
574:
565:
560:
556:
551:
544:
539:
535:
528:
524:
511:
504:
499:
492:
473:
469:
464:Primary Holding
447:
443:
439:
422:
320:
309:
186:
174:
162:
90:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
786:
776:
775:
770:
765:
760:
755:
750:
745:
740:
735:
730:
716:
715:
705:
663:
649:
648:External links
646:
644:
643:
634:
622:
610:
601:
599:387 U.S. at 8.
589:
587:387 U.S. at 7.
577:
575:387 U.S. at 9.
563:
554:
552:387 U.S. at 6.
542:
533:
522:
502:
500:387 U.S. at 5.
490:
467:
440:
438:
435:
430:Potter Stewart
421:
418:
398:
397:
389:
354:for a writ of
332:juvenile court
330:, acting as a
328:superior court
308:
305:
281:14th Amendment
262:
261:
251:
250:
246:
245:
242:
238:
237:
234:
233:Concur/dissent
230:
229:
226:
222:
221:
218:
214:
213:
210:
206:
205:
201:
200:
199:
198:
184:Potter Stewart
149:
146:
141:
135:
134:
130:
129:
124:
123:
119:
118:
111:
107:
106:
102:
101:
96:
92:
91:
80:
64:
60:
59:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
785:
774:
773:Prank calling
771:
769:
766:
764:
761:
759:
756:
754:
751:
749:
746:
744:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
725:
723:
713:
709:
706:
701:
692:
683:
676:
672:
668:
664:
662:at Wikisource
661:
656:
652:
651:
638:
629:
627:
617:
615:
605:
596:
594:
584:
582:
572:
570:
568:
558:
549:
547:
537:
531:
526:
519:
515:
509:
507:
497:
495:
487:
484:
480:
476:
471:
465:
461:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
434:
431:
426:
417:
415:
411:
410:Norman Dorsen
407:
404:
395:
390:
386:
385:
384:
382:
377:
374:
370:
364:
359:
357:
356:habeas corpus
353:
348:
345:
340:
336:
333:
329:
324:
316:
314:
304:
302:
298:
293:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
260:
256:
252:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:Case opinions
202:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:Chief Justice
139:
138:
136:
131:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
100:
99:Oral argument
97:
93:
88:
84:
78:
77:
72:
69:
65:
61:
58:
56:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
666:
637:
604:
557:
536:
525:
474:
470:
463:
462: (1967)
448:
444:
427:
423:
399:
381:99 Ariz. 181
378:
366:
361:
349:
343:
341:
337:
325:
317:
310:
267:
266:
265:
249:Laws applied
191:
179:
167:
164:Tom C. Clark
155:
105:Case history
74:
57:Gault et al.
53:
15:
667:In re Gault
660:In re Gault
475:In re Gault
449:In re Gault
373:misdemeanor
292:due process
283:applies to
268:In re Gault
225:Concurrence
217:Concurrence
188:Byron White
144:Earl Warren
24:In re Gault
722:Categories
437:References
408:professor
307:Background
297:Abe Fortas
288:defendants
196:Abe Fortas
152:Hugo Black
128:Amendment.
87:U.S. LEXIS
85:527; 1967
83:L. Ed. 2d
63:Citations
665:Text of
428:Justice
420:Decision
285:juvenile
209:Majority
95:Argument
394:hearsay
279:of the
244:Stewart
241:Dissent
122:Holding
703:
697:
694:
688:
685:
682:Justia
679:
477:,
451:,
236:Harlan
194:
192:·
190:
182:
180:·
178:
170:
168:·
166:
158:
156:·
154:
673:
481:
455:
344:still
228:White
220:Black
110:Prior
55:In re
675:U.S.
486:1, 4
483:U.S.
460:1, 4
457:U.S.
414:ACLU
76:more
68:U.S.
66:387
710:, "
671:387
516:, "
479:387
453:387
406:Law
403:NYU
388:and
259:XIV
724::
669:,
625:^
613:^
592:^
580:^
566:^
545:^
505:^
493:^
416:.
303:.
257:,
321:'
79:)
73:(
71:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.