CASE: In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 28 (1967) The right to counsel when facing the prospect of institutionalization was clearly articulated in the case of In re Gault (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The decision, in this case, was the turning point for the rights of juvenile within the United States Courts (In re Gault, n.d.). This was the first time that the Supreme Court held that children facing delinquency prosecution had several of the same legal rights as adults within criminal courts (In re Gault, n.d.). Rights included the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notification of charges, and the right to a full hearing on the merits of the case (In re Gault, n.d.). CASE HISTORY: On June 8, 1954, fifteen-year-old Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault was accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor by the name of Mrs. Cook (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). After the complaint was filed, Gault and friend, Ronald Lewis, were arrested and transported to the Children’s Detention Home. Gault was reportedly on probation when he was arrested due to having previously been in the company of another boy who had stolen a wallet from a purse (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). When the two …show more content…
Cook was not present and no transcript or recording was otherwise made, and no persons were sworn in prior to testifying (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). During this hearing, the judge questioned Gault and there are conflicting accounts regarding what, if anything, Gault admitted to (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). Following that hearing, Gault was taken back to the Detention Home where he was detained for another two or three days prior to being released (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault, n.d.). Once Gault was released from detention, his parents were notified that another hearing was scheduled for June 15, 1964 (Facts and Case Summary - In re Gault,
Cara Knott was a 20-year-old living in California who was enrolled at San Diego State University. On December 27th, 1986, she was driving home from her boyfriend's house. She called her parents to let them know she was on her way home but never got there. The following day, her car was found on a dead-end road. Along with suspicious skid marks (53 between them), insinuating a large vehicle that did not match the car she was driving.
The Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), involved Gerald Scarpelli who was on probation in Wisconsin for armed robbery, but was found in violation of the conditions set for his probation, when he was charged with burglary in Illinois. Scarpelli had been originally convicted in July, 1965 after he was arrested for the armed robbery, whereas he had plead guilty to the crime. However, he was fortunate that he did not have to serve the fifteen years he was sentenced to, due to the Judge suspending his time and instead placing him on seven years of probation. Per standard practice for probation, the judge placed requirements and restrictions that were to be followed, in order for him to remain on probation and
(Justia, n. d.) Therefore, Scarpelli was released from prison in Wisconsin and was paroled to a federal detainer. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that probation cannot be revoked unless some aspects of the due process are observed when considering removing a probationer from probation. Therefore, following the rights and procedure must ensure that the probationer is informed or given written notice of a hearing and can attend the hearing to present evidence on his or her behalf, which entitles testimony against the probationer; therefore, confronting witnesses and the cross-examination of the witnesses. (Latessa & Smith, 2011)
The judge’s decision in the case of Walter B. can be discussed from the two perspectives, though her decision still seems to be wrong in the light of the presented evidence. From the first perspective, the judge relied upon the legislatures and federal laws to derive her own opinion. One of the major tenets she was driven by is the capable guardianship effect, which suggests that dangerous offenders, who live closely to neighborhoods, can potentially harm the community members (Mancini, 2014). Since Walter had a neurological condition and was caught on the possession of child pornography (Sacks, 2015), he was considered to be dangerous for people in his community due to his inclination to sexually abuse children. This fact was reinforced by
“The court consistently held that children are entitled to the same due process as adults. With that understood, however, the Court has also consistently held that, from a developmental standpoint, youth are different from adults, which greatly impacts how courts should treat them in a whole host of areas, such as waiver of rights, culpability, and punishment” (National Juvenile Defender Center). This shows that the juvenile delinquent cases before In Re Gault were not highly regulated. The Court believed that handling juveniles needed to be very different from the way the courts handle adult cases. In Re Gault changed that.
The constitutional guarantees a Juveniles Right to Counsel that applies to proceedings in which juveniles are charged as delinquents. Stronger, more specific statement The U.S. Supreme Court believed that juveniles should have a Right to Counsel in 1960s, when they reviewed the Gault case, where a juveniles are being charged with a crime, even though the case was argued, to decide if a juvenile is entitled to some of the same constitutional rights as adults, which they agreed they were. So
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,
Annotated bibliography Childress, S. (2016, June 2). More States Consider Raising the Age for Juvenile Crime. Retrieved from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/more-states-consider-raising-the-age-for-juvenile-crime/ More states are considering to raising the age for juvenile crimes before being tried as adult because young offender's mental capacity. The idea is to cut the cost of incarcerate young offender in adult prison and ensure offenders to receive proper education and specialized care to change their behavior. Putting children in adult prison does not deter crime.
The case made an impact on the treatment of juveniles today because juveniles now have four basic constitutional rights when they are to be
2. Predicate Acts The De Sole and Howard Plaintiffs have alleged predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In addition, Howard alleges false labeling of visual art, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2318, as a predicate act. Hammer argues, however, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hammer committed a predicate act and, in particular, have not alleged that "Hammer used the mail or the wires for the purpose of executing the alleged scheme."
Issue: Kent was unaware of his case's transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court of D.C. to the state's regular district court. Was the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction valid? Would the individual transferred to the adult court still have rights that were applicable in juvenile court? Did the juvenile court conduct a full investigation for Kent? Important information might have been revealed had an investigation been performed.
There is no one name for the case of Frank Abagnale. He was tried in France, Sweden, Italy, and then finally the United States. Therefore, it is reasonable to call the case The United States versus Frank Abagnale. He was accused of bank fraud, identity fraud, and professional con artist. A great criminal always starts young.