In June of 1964 in Gila County, Arizona, 15 year old Gerald Francis Gault was taken into custody by police for allegedly making obscene, harassing phone calls (In re Gault, n.d.). Gault claimed that a friend, Ronald Lewis, had made the harassing phone calls to a neighbor and that he was not involved in any way. Gault had already been placed on probation for a prior offense. After being taken into custody, Gault’s parents were not notified of his status by law enforcement officials(In re Gault, n.d.). Instead, Gault’s mother located him at the juvenile detention center, but was not allowed to take him home. At a preliminary hearing, a juvenile judge remanded Gault to custody. Gault was released from the juvenile detention center several days later, along with a note, notifying his mother of an upcoming hearing (In re Gault, n.d.). At the hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gault into the custody of the State Industrial School until age 21 or discharged by due process of law (In re Gault, n.d.). Arizona State law at the time did not allow for any appeals in juvenile cases, therefore, Gault’s parents petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The …show more content…
The Gaults again petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court with two specific issues. First, they argued that the Arizona Juvenile Code was insufficient because it did not allow for notification to parents of the charges brought about or of the hearings, and it did not allow for an appeal (US Courts, n.d.). Second, they argued that Juvenile Court’s denial of due process, the failure to inform to right of counsel, the admittance of hearsay, and lack of record keeping of proceedings was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment (US Courts,
He was sentenced to an adjudicatory hearing and petition was filed. The petition was upheld since there were numerous witnesses. Jones was declared as “not amenable to the care, treatment, and training program available through the facilities of the juvenile court.” Jones was transferred to a California criminal court through a judicial waiver.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: affirmed trial court’s Judgment for the defendant, CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [i.e. affirmed plaintiff’s convictions by the trial court]; b. United States Supreme Court: reverse Court of Appeals and trial court’s convictions of the plaintiffs. 8. Facts of the case: • Moore lived in her home together with her son Moore Dale and her two grandsons; John Moore and Moore jr. • John Moore joined the family after his mother had passed on. • John’s father had been living with Inez and her family until the trial period; it is however not clear whether he was living there when the citation was issued.
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
A towns judge informs the posse that they must bring the suspects back for trial and that the formation of the posse is considered illegal because the sheriff is out of town. This is the first element of an infraction of the due process law. This is important
The issue before the court was the question, “Was her Fourth Amendment right violated by school
In the case of Ohio v. Clark, Darius Clark states that by using a three and a half year olds word as testimony, it violates his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. He argues that this child is not “mature enough to give reliable testimony, uninfluenced by those who might try to shape what they say and unaffected by the pressure of a trial setting” (Denniston 2). Although the man pleaded guilty to the charges of child abuse and received 28 years of prison time, he knows that his sixth amendment right was violated and is fighting against it. The use of someone that “is incompetent to appear in court as a witness” violates the sixth amendment and the fourteenth amendment pertaining to the Due Process Clause filed under it in Section I (Ohio
This book contains a report on Los Angeles State Juvenile Justice System court written by Edward Humes, the Pulitzer Prize award winner, nonfiction, and true crime writer. Out of all the twelve books he has written, five of them involve the criminal justice system, used mostly in criminal studies field. “No Matter How Loud I Shout” is the main book that examined the complicated life of the juvenile justice system, reporting the stories of several juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice officials. More especially, how they direct the arbitrary laws of the juvenile justice system. Humes, in this book, delivers an excellent, in-depth, eye-opening, informative, and often depressing account of what goes on behind the closed doors of America
II. Justifications for Curtailing Minors’ Constitutional Rights In 1967, in In re Gault, the Court explicitly declared that, “neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.” Gault inspired an explosion of children’s rights litigation. In the years that followed, the Court recognized children’s constitutional rights of due process, free speech, and reproductive choice.
In this paper in criminal procedure, I will discuss a scenario in regards to extradition. Throughout this paper, I will address and answer the following questions: 1.) What procedural steps must the Orange County prosecutor take to extradite Hurst from Arizona? 2.) What procedural steps must the Orange County prosecutor take to extradite Brook from Mexico?
Miranda vs. Arizona Introduction The Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was a significant case for both law enforcement agencies and the citizens of America. This case would be the milestone that changed how law enforcement agencies handled citizens that were being detained for crimes that were committed. The results from this case have been constantly reviewed and gained further information on how the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments are interpreted. While this was not the first case that brought up violations of Constitutional Rights, this case would set a standard that future Supreme Court Justices would have to uphold.
This has turned into a landmark case because it has altered the way the juvenile delinquent court system runs. A teenager of fifteen years old, Gerald Gault found himself accused of making an obscene telephone call. The victim was a neighbor Mrs. Cook, who reported the incident to police on June 8, 1964. A police officer then located Gault and arrested him on the charges (United States Courts). In an interview with Gualt he describes the way officials handles his case.
In the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O., “TLO” (Tracy Lois Odem) had her pursed check by the school’s vice principal because a teacher had caught her smoking inside the girl’s bathroom. TLO then was convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs discovered during the search. She later fought the search and presented this case to the New Jersey Juvenile Court. The court found her guilty of delinquency, but TLO repealed and the court reversed this decision and asked the Supreme Court to review the case. This case shows how controversial the Fourth Amendment can be but it also reveals that in certain cases that searches against students can be unreasonable and therefore violating their constitutional rights.
Abstract Miranda v. Arizona took place in 1996. The case involves a Hispanic man named, Ernesto Miranda and the state of New York. Miranda is being charged with rape and kidnapping. He was held in interrogation for a lengthy amount of time until he eventually confessed. He was found guilty and the conviction was approved by the supreme court because he did not request a lawyer.