The facts, issues and court holding about the In re Gault case is that a 15 year old boy by the name of Gerald Gault (Jerry). Jerry was accused of making foul telephone call to one of his neighbors. This took place on June 8, 1964. Jerry and one of his by the name of Ronald Lewis was taken to a detention home and was arrested. Gault had a pervious arrest from stealing a wallet from a woman’s purse, him and another boy. Short time later Gault mother was looking for him and Lewis family told her, her son was arrested. At the time Gerald was picked up, his mother and father were both at work. No notice that Gerald was being taken into custody was left at the home. No other steps were taken to advise them that their son had, in effect, been arrested. …show more content…
The officer that arrest Gault filed a petition the same exact day of his court hearing. Nor Gault or his parents knew anything about this. It was two months later the day of Gault habeas corpus hearing on August 17, 1964. On June 9th an informal hearing took place. Mrs. Cook did not show up for court, no recording was made, no transcript, no one was sworn in to testify. The judge question Gault however, there was something not right with his story. Gault was sent back to dentition where he did return home after being in dentition for two or more days. During another trail day the victim still did not appear even asking to be there to see who was making the obscene telephone calls. At this hearing, the probation officers filed a report listing the charge as lewd phone calls. This report was shown r told to Gault or his parents. Gault was sentenced Gault to juvenile detention for six years, until he turned 21. The parents filed a petition but it was later
Due to their plan, Donald had passed away in the fire. Her son Darian, had received burn wounds and was in the hospital receiving care, when five days later Mrs. Siebert was questioned by the police on the death of her son. She was arrested by Officer Clinton, and taken in the station. He was ordered by Officer Hanrahan to not give the woman Miranda Warnings, and instead follow a question first, then give warnings technique. He questioned Mrs. Seibert for thirty to forty minutes, and had asked her questions about how she though Donald was to die, as well as the agreement made with the boys about Donald.
The last case Defendant cites, Quinones, is almost identical to Pierce and Barrett in that the facts also involve a capias warrant issued by a trial court in an active Ohio case, when appellee failed to appear for his trial. In Quinones, defendant-appellee had gotten arrested and incarcerated in Arizona while awaiting trial on his Ohio matter. In that case also, the prisoner did everything possible to notify the appropriate prison authorities, court and prosecutor of his place of imprisonment, and promptly filed a pro se motion for speedy trial to give actual notice to the State and Court. Here too, the State failed to act in a timely manner after the detainer was set to return the prisoner to Ohio custody, and he filed a motion to dismiss
He did not find any suspicious texts but did find images of under aged girls in the defendant's picture folder and he was arrested for possession of the photos under violation of Penal Code section 311,11, subdivision (a). Hayes claimed that he made the decision to search the defendant based on the information given by the defendant stating he was on probation
Three years later, Rubin's lawyers filed for a petition, this petition was granted by the US District Court judge Mr. Haddon Lee Sarokin Bello reinstated his testimony from 1967, identifying Carter and Artis as the shooters once again. The defence pointed out the obvious differences between the descriptions given by Marins (Died 1973) to the appearances of Carter and Artis. A new testimony from one of Rubin's associates stated that she was pressured into testifying against him by the Passaic County prosecutors.
During this time frame, the accused had no direct supervision of the parolee. The defendants were not appreciative of any danger the parolee Mr. Vanda posed to the community or to the decedent. Were the actions of the board so direct account of his carelessness release of Mr. Vanda that it assumes the state action as required to state a claim under section 1983? I surmise that the incontestable facts fail to establish the necessary state
State v. Terrell Facts: John Watson was a close friends of the defendant’s mother and maintained a friendly report with Terrell. Terrell was on parole at the time of the alleged incident for unrelated charges at the time. The confrontation stemmed from stole checks that Terrell had taken from Watson and begin sharing and using to buy goods. On June 20, 1992, Watson discovered that the checks had been stole and were being used by Terrell and spoke with Terrell’s mother and then summoned the sheriff’s deputy. Watson asked for the charges to not yet be filed until he notified them.
However, three years later Scarpelli file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after he was put on parole by the Wisconsin Department. (Justia, n.d.) Apparently, the appeal was dropped; subsequently, to the revocation of Scarpelli's probation. Scarpelli argued that he could have proven his innocence in court if he had been awarded the opportunity to explain and answer the allegations about his involvement in the alleged burglary. (Justia, n.d.)
The case of the State v Rusk involved the defendant Edward Rusk being convicted of 2nd degree rape. There was controversy as to if the defendant actually committed the act of rape due to the circumstances. The case involves a female named Pat. She decides to meet up one night with her friend Terry and go bar hopping.
Gerard Baden-Clay appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court charged with murder about two months after reporting his wife, Allison Baden-Clay missing on April 20, 2012. His conviction was downgraded in December 2015 to manslaughter on the point that the jury’s decision could not be supported by the evidence presented at trial. Although manslaughter itself is a serious charge and the sentence of imprisonment is an extremely serious penalty, there are many public backlash and disturbance as a result of this. *Adding more
Fare v. Michael C. is a case from 1979 where the United States Supreme Court reviewed what would make a juvenile’s confession inadmissible in court (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The case begins with the respondent, Michael C., a 16-year-old juvenile being taken into custody by Van Nuys police in California on the suspicion of murder. He was immediately taken to the police station for questioning. Prior to the beginning of questioning, police fully advised Michael of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. At the beginning of the questioning, Michael, who was on probation in the Juvenile Court, asked for his probation officer to be present.
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.
There were claims on the Manton case study that Dixon had prior history of engaging in sexual activity at his high school, which led Dixon to be suspended twice for the prior sexual acts. At the time of this incident, Dixon was 18 years old, and the “victim” was 15 (Manton, 2005). Following this factual information, Dixon at that time claimed that the sexual act was consensual and accused the girl of fabricating the story because of fear of her parents finding out and punishing her for sleeping with a black man (Manton, 2005). Several charges were suggested for Dixon which included: statutory rape, aggravated child molestation, rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assist (Manton, 2005). Dixon was then acquitted of a majority of the charges and found Dixon guilty of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation (Manton,
Synopsis The Glick’s case came to the attention of authority quickly. The state police and Children and Youth were almost immediately involved. The court and the corner were fastly involved as well. It came to their attention the day that the baby was rushed to the hospital.
The Worker introduced herself to Ms. Thomas and provided contact information. According to Ms. Thomas, John Casteel, the father received bail jail from his mother. Ms. Thomas was crying bitterly and was very upset about the charges and the fact that she is still left in jail without a bond. Ms. Thomas told the worker, that she initially called the police because of the physical violence with Mr. Casteel. Also she
Gerald Gault is a 15-year-old that was taken into custody for prank phone calls to Mrs. Cook that was sexually inappropriate. In addition, when authorities arrived at Gault residents no legal guardian was present to be informing of Gault arrest, no message was left either to inform the guardians of the situation. Furthermore, Gault claims he only dialed the Mrs. Cooks telephone number and his friend did the inappropriate remarks, but then confess to have said a little bit in the prank call. In Gault hearing the judge proclaim Gault a juvenile delinquent until the age of 21- years –old.