The Marshall Daily
In Re Gault, 1966
Volume 1, Issue 1
The Fourteenth
Amendment
Section 1. All
persons born or natural-
ized in the United States
and subject to the juris-
diction thereof, are citi-
zens of the United States
and of the State wherein
they reside. No State
shall make or enforce
any law which shall
abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor
shall any State deprive
any person of life, lib-
erty, or property, with-
out due process of law;
nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the
laws.
Due process of law is the
principle of the American
legal system that requires
fairness for people dealing
with the government. Fol-
lowing the basic rules of the
fifth and fourteenth amend-
ments, due process guaran-
Youth Arrested for Lewd Phone Calls
On June 8 1965
at 10:00AM, fifteen year
old Gerald Gault and his
friend, Robert Lewis
were arrested after Ari-
zona police received a
verbal complaint from
their neighbor, Mrs.
Cook, about obscene
phone calls she had been
receiving. Gault had
previously been placed
on probation for other
crimes, so the police did
not hesitate to take him
into custody. The police
failed to notify his par-
ents, who were at work
at the time of the arrest.
When Gault’s older
brother was sent to the
Lewis residence to in-
quire about Gerald’s
What is Due Process?
tees a person
the right to
have their
“day in
court” if
threatened
by state, fed-
eral, or lo- Supreme court:
http://www.angeljustice.org/img/original/
4Unit-
ed%20States%20Supreme%20Court%201
April 6, 2006
By Renee Laramie
whereabouts, he
learned that he had
been taken into cus-
tody. Mrs. Gault went
to the Detention Home
where her son was be-
ing kept, and parole of-
ficer and superinten-
dent of the home Offi-
cer Flagg told her what
had happened.
Gault had a
hearing the next day, Justice Abe Fortas :
June 9, at 3:00 in the http://www.senate.gov/artandhi
afternoon. Gault’s fa- story/history/resources/graphic/l
arge/AbeFortas.jpg
ther was not present
because he was out of
town on business. Also, wards, Gault’s mother,
Mrs. Cook did not come Officer Flagg, and the
to the hearing. No one Juvenile Court Judge re-
was sworn in at the hear- (Lewd Phone Calls Continued on
page 2)
ing, and no records were
made of the trial. After-
By Amy Wolf
cal governments with the potential
denial of “life, liberty, or property.”
The rights guaranteed by due process
may exist in both criminal and ad-
ministrative cases, and include the
right to have counsel, right to cross-
examine and confront witnesses, no-
(Due Process Continued on page 2)
 V OL U ME 1 , ISSUE 1 I N RE GAU L T, 1 96 6 PAGE 2

chance to face the neighbor who ac-

(Lewd Phone Calls Continued from page 1)
cused him. Also, the maximum pen- Court Vote
membered the hearing differ- alty for an adult is a $50 fine or two By Beau Nicolette
ently. The judge resolved to months in prison.
think about it and Gault was sent A habeas corpus hearing was 7-2
back to the Detention Home. set up for August 17, 1965. At this
In re Gault case just set-
Gault was released from hearing, Judge McGhee was ques-
tled with a vote count of seven to
the Detention Home on June 11, tioned about his actions. When the
two voting for Gerald Gault. The
after being held for three days. Arizona Superior Court dismissed
seven concurring judges all stated
There is no record of why he was this hearing, the Gaults appealed to
that juvenile courts were insti-
sent back to the Detention Home the Supreme Court. The Supreme
tuted to give youths a fair chance
after the hearing or why he was Court went on to award some, but not
but really these courts were hurt-
released on the 11th. At 5:00 on all of the rights listed in the Bill of
ing America’s youth. This seven
the night of his release, the GaultsRights to people under the age of 18.
to two vote makes it apparent that
received a letter from Officer
the constitutional bill of rights
Flagg regarding another hearing
was meant for all people of Amer-
that would take place on June 15.
ica. The majority of justices have
After this hearing, it was decided
agreed for the youth of America,
that Gault would be committed to
giving juveniles a step up in soci-
six years at the State Industrial
ety. This day in 1967 will be re-
School. He will be enrolled at
membered for giving youths equal
the reform school until he reaches
rights and fair trials.
age twenty-one. If Gault were
eighteen, he would have been
able to have a lawyer represent
him, and would have had the

(Due Process Continued from page 1) or property without that person have
a say in the matter, in a courtroom,
tice of the charges in a timely or before some other quasi-judicial
fashion, right of obtaining a trial body.
transcript, and the right to appeal
the decision. The fundamental ob-
jective of due process is to ensure
that the government cannot unilat-
erally take a person’s life, liberty,

The Majority Opinion

By Veronica Gomez

The court ruled in favor of the
Gaults, 8-1. The majority opinion
was written by Justice Abe Fortas.
He wrote, " Under our Constitu-
tion the condition of being a boy
does not justify a kangaroo court.
...Due process is the primary and
indispensable foundation of indi-
vidual freedom. It is the basic and ment was being violated. Just be-
essential term in the social com- cause he was a minor, does not
pact which defines the rights of mean that he does not possess the
the individual and delimits the same constitutional rights as adults.
powers which the state may exer- This opinion ended with the expan-
cise...." The court was in favor of sion of "fundamental fairness" to
the Gaults because they saw that cases involving juveniles. In this it
Gerald Gault’s fourteenth amend- (Majority Opinion Continued on page 3)
 V OL U ME 1 , ISSUE 1
(Majority Opinion Continued from page 2)
stated that juveniles were at least guaranteed a
notice of charges, the right to an attorney, to
cross-examine witnesses, and to confront
their accusers. They were also given the right
to speak or to remain silent.
The Dissenting Opinion
By
The In re Gault case cen-
tered on the Fourteenth Amend-
ment and the due process rights of
minors under the law. Did juve-
niles facing criminal charges have
the same protections under the
Constitution as adults? Was the
State's effort to protect juveniles
an unconstitutional infringement
on their rights? The ruling was 8-
1 in favor of Gaults, but there
were dissenting opinions, even
from those who voted with the
majority, because this was a very
complex case. Justice Black ruled
with the concurring votes, but he
did have some qualms. He stated
that he agreed with the majority,
but felt that the ruling “strikes a
fatal blow to much of what is
unique about the juvenile court
system…” Justice Harlan’s deci-
sion was partly concurring and
partly dissenting. To him, “The
central issue here, and the princi-
pal one upon which I am divided
from the Court, is the method by
which the procedural require-
ments of due process should be
I N RE GAU L T, 1 96 6 PAGE 3
http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/branches
/spc/udalljpgs/lsudall-small.jpg
Jenna Nguyen
measured.” He further explains
this by stating, “It must at the out- a criminal act.” So in general,
set be emphasized that the protec- Stewart felt that trials between
tions necessary here cannot be de- adults and children are completely
termined by resort to any classifi- different and the rules that apply
cation of juvenile proceedings ei- to adults do not extend to chil-
ther as criminal or as civil, dren. Although the In re Gault
whether made by the State or by case decision seemed simplistic
this Court. Both formulae are sim- and straightforward at first, it
ply too imprecise to permit rea- demonstrates the infinite layers
soned analysis of these difficult behind a single ruling.
constitutional issues.” Justice
Stewart was the only one who dis-
sented from the majority com-
pletely. In his decision, he says,
“Juvenile proceedings are not
criminal trials. They are not civil
trials. They are simply not adver-
sary proceedings. Whether treat-
ing with a delinquent child, a ne-
glected child, a defective child, or
a dependent child, a juvenile pro-
ceeding's whole purpose and mis-
sion is the very opposite of the
mission and purpose of a prosecu-
tion in a criminal court. The ob-
ject of the one is correction of a
condition. The object of the other
is conviction and punishment for
The Concurring Opinion Our Opinion
By Virginia Marquez
By Joe Wang
After the Superior Court young boy, was invalid because
of Arizona and the Arizona Su- it violated the rights of due proc- In the opinion of The Marshall Daily,
preme Court had denied the sum- ess. These rights are detailed in we support the ruling of the Supreme
mon of habeas corpus in the case the Fourteenth Amendment. Court on the question of due process
of In Re Gault, the United States Specifically, Gerald Gault was towards minors. We feel that every-
Supreme Court finally judged in denied the basic human rights of: body– including minors– should be en-
favor of fifteen-year-old Gerald 1. Notice of the charges, with re- titled to the constitutional rights that
Gault. gard to their timeliness and make our country run as smoothly as it
Adolescent Gerald Gault, sat in specificity 2. Right to counsel 3. does. We all deserve our basic human
front of the third jury he has seen Right to confrontation and cross- rights. Put yourself in the shoes of
in the past two years. In June 9, examination 4. Privilege against Gault, wouldn’t you be enraged if you
1964, the boy was on trial in Ju- self-incrimination 5. Right to a were faced with a ridiculous sentence?
venile Court for the crime of transcript of the proceedings 6.
speaking obscenely to his Right to appellate review Also, as good citizens of the United
neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on the tele- The court opinion of the concur- States we should have a certain extent
phone. The Juvenile Court sen- ring members held that, "neither of trust towards the way our govern-
tenced Gault to be committed to the Fourteenth Amendment nor ment is run. By electing our president,
the state industrial school for 6 the Bill of Rights is for adults we are putting a certain amount of trust
years until he turned 21. One sig- alone." The concurring mem- that he will nominate the best of the
nificant fact of the unjust verdict bers of the jury stated that mi- best for the position of a supreme court
of the Juvenile Court was that nei-nors should be guaranteed due justice. Even if the justice’s actions
ther Mrs. Cook herself nor process of the law. seem to be rash at first, it is important
Gault’s father was present at the to examine all sides of the case and see
trial to testify. In addition, the the purpose of his actions because his
earlier trial was informal, not actions are always going to be loyal to
performing any professional the constitution and to the government.
court actions prior to the Therefore, keep an open mind, and do
hearing. No one was sworn not judge before you are certain of all
at the hearing. No transcript the details related to the story.
or recording was made. No
memorandum or record of
the substance of the proceed-
ings was prepared. An adult
charged with the same crime
would have received a maxi-
mum of a fifty dollar fine
and two months in jail.
After many days and an-
other unsuccessful trial for
Gault in the Arizona Su- Amelia Lewis represented Gerald
preme Court, the case reached Gault:
the United States Supreme http://members.dslextreme.com/users
Court. There, the awaited ver- /madpicciotto/Gault%20Resources_fil
es/image002.jpg
dict was given. The ruling
stated that Arizona’s juvenile
code, which condemned the