Case Brief: Delinquent Minor

¶ … Gault Caption: In re Gault et al., 387 U.S. 1; 87 S. Ct. 1428; 18 L. Ed. 2D 527; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1478; 40 Ohio Op. 2D 378. Facts: After allegedly making obscene phone calls to a neighbor, the appellants' son, a fifteen-year-old boy, was taken into custody by the Gila County sheriff. The detention occurred without notice to the parents. The boy was questioned without being advised of his right to silence and without his parents present. At no time were the boy or his parents advised that the boy had the right to counsel.

When the mother went to the juvenile facility where her son was being detained, she was advised that he was being held because of obscene phone calls and that a hearing would occur the next day. At the hearing in the Juvenile Court, a petition was filed stating that the boy was a delinquent minor. The petition was not served on the boy or his parents and did not contain any factual allegations to support the charge that the boy was delinquent.

The complainant was not at the hearing and did not testify against the boy. No witnesses were sworn in at the hearing. At the hearing, a police officer testified that the boy, while being questioned without an attorney or his parents present had admitted to making the obscene phone calls. The Gila County Juvenile Court committed the boy as a juvenile delinquent to the Arizona State Industrial School until he turned 21. Appellants filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Maricopa County Superior Court. That court dismissed the petition.

The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the trial court's decision. Procedural History: Appellant parents sought review of the decision of the Supreme Court Arizona, which affirmed the Maricopa County Superior Court's dismissal of their writ for a petition of habeas corpus, alleging that their child was improperly committed by the Juvenile Court of Gila County as a juvenile delinquent to the Arizona State Industrial School.

Issues: The heart of this case focuses on whether juveniles charged as being delinquents are entitled to the same due process protections as adults facing criminal charges.

Did a detention that did not meet due process requirements violate the boy's due process rights and require that he be released pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus? Does due process require that a child in a juvenile detention proceeding get written notice of the charges against him? Does due process require that the parents of a child in a juvenile detention proceeding get written notice of the charges against that child? Does a child in a juvenile detention proceeding have a right to an attorney? Do a child and his parents have a right to notification about their right to an attorney and court-appointed counsel in a juvenile detention proceeding? Does a juvenile have a right to remain silent? Does a juvenile have a right to cross examine the witnesses against him? Holding: The Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Reasoning/Rationale: Under ARS § 8-201-6(a), a delinquent child is one found to have violated a state or local law, ordinance, or regulation.

The boy was found to have violated ARS § 13-377, which prohibited the use of vulgar language within the hearing of a woman or child. If committed by an adult, the penalty for that crime was imprisonment for not more than two months. The Court determined that it was not a violation of the Constitution to have a juvenile system separate from the adult criminal justice system.

However, Court found that the proceedings were adversarial; therefore the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Due Process protections found in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to criminal defendants. These rights include: notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to confrontation and cross examination, privilege against self-incrimination, right to a transcript of the proceedings, and the right to appellate review. Furthermore, applying Due Process in juvenile proceedings will not compromise the special benefits accorded to juveniles in those proceedings.

Furthermore, the special proceedings do not seem to be linked to reduced crime rates among juveniles. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights both apply to juveniles, as well as to adults. Rule of Law: The Court determined that juvenile delinquency proceedings where one of the possible outcomes is detention in a juvenile delinquency were sufficiently similar to criminal proceedings to trigger due process protections for the juveniles. The Court determined that a juvenile and his parents have.