Case law · Highest court · Federal

In Re GAULT

Decided
May 15, 1967
Docket
116
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 5,473 timesAbrogated (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated, abrogated on other grounds, overruled on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · C.D., a Minor v. State of Alaska

What later courts said

  • holding that due process requires adequate notice to minors and the parents in juvenile delinquency proceedings — In Re MW (2009)
  • holding that the right against self-incrimination available to adults is also applicable in the juvenile context — In Re DAR (2002)
  • holding that juveniles are entitled to certain constitutional protections in adjudication proceedings, including the right to counsel — State v. Jones (2010)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2) from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona affirming the [*4] dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 99 Ariz. 181, 407 P. 2d 760 (1965). The petition sought the release of Gerald Francis Gault, appellants’ 15-year-old son, who had been committed as a juvenile delinquent to the State Industrial School by the Juvenile Court of Gila County, Arizona. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed dismissal of the writ against various arguments which included an attack upon the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code because of its alleged denial of procedural due process rights to juveniles charged with being “delinquents.” The court agreed that the constitutional guarantee of due process of law is applicable in such proceedings. It held that Arizona’s Juvenile Code is to be read as “impliedly” implementing the “due process concept.” It then proceeded to identify and describe “the particular elements which constitute due process in a juvenile hearing.” It concluded that the proceedings ending in commitment of Gerald Gault did not offend those requirements. We do not agree, and we reverse. We begin with a statement of the facts.

I.

On Monday, June 8, 1964, at about 10 a. m., Gerald Francis Gault and a friend, Ronald Lewis, were taken into custody by the Sheriff of Gila County. Gerald was then still subject to a six months’ probation order which had been entered on February 25, 1964, as a result of his having been in the company of another boy who had stolen a wallet from a lady’s purse. The police action on June 8 was taken as the result of a verbal complaint by a neighbor of the boys, Mrs. Cook, about a telephone call made to her in which the caller or callers made lewd or indecent remarks. It will suffice for purposes of this opinion to say that the remarks or questions put to her were of the irritatingly offensive, adolescent, sex variety.

Statutes cited

Cite this

In Re GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.