0
Who was the Supreme Court Chief Justice in the In Re Gault case?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)
In Re Gault, (1967) is the landmark Supreme Court case that determined juvenile offenders had the same Due Process rights as adults.
The Chief Justice in Gault was Earl Warren (1953-1969). Justice Abe Fortas wrote the opinion of the Court.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
This 1967 court case established several legal rights for juveniles?
In Re Gault
In what case did the US Supreme Court say that juveniles aren't entitled to a jury trial?
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 (1971)In McKeiver, Justice Blackmun, presenting the opinion of the Court, explained that the purpose of applying due process protections to juvenile court proceedings, as allowed pursuant to the Court's decisions in In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967) and In Re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970), was fundamental fairness with regard to fact-finding.In neither case did the Court extend the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to juvenile court proceedings, because the intent of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate, and a jury trial creates a more adversarial environment that can undermine that goal. "Equating the adjudicative phase of the juvenile proceeding with a criminal trial ignores the aspects of fairness, concern, sympathy, and paternal attention inherent in the juvenile court system." Juvenile court is not criminal court.This decision was later upheld in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982) and Schall v. Martin, 467 US 253 (1984).It's important to note that McKeiver did not preclude individual states from providing juveniles with a jury option, but simply did not require them to do so.Blackmun clarified this point: "The imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not strengthen greatly, if at all, the factfinding function, and would, contrarily, provide an attrition of the juvenile court's assumed ability to function in a unique manner. It would not remedy the defects of the system. Meager as has been the hoped-for advance in the juvenile field, the alternative would be regressive, would lose what has been gained, and would tend once again to place the juvenile squarely in the routine of the criminal process."The juvenile concept held high promise. We are reluctant to say that, despite disappointments of grave dimensions, it still does not hold promise, and we are particularly reluctant to say, as do the Pennsylvania appellants here, that the system cannot accomplish its rehabilitative goals. So much depends on the availability of resources, on the interest and commitment of the public, on willingness to learn, and on understanding as to cause and effect and cure. In this field, as in so many others, one perhaps learns best by doing. We are reluctant to disallow the States to experiment further and to seek in new and different ways the elusive answers to the problems of the young, and we feel that we would be impeding that experimentation by imposing the jury trial. The States, indeed, must go forward. If, in its wisdom, any State feels the jury trial is desirable in all cases, or in certain kinds, there appears to be no impediment to its installing a system embracing that feature. That, however, is the State's privilege and not its obligation."In 1971, no states offered jury trials. As of 2009, ten states grant the right of juveniles to jury trials, and another eleven states allow jury trials under limited circumstances.Often, US Supreme Court decisions follow trends in state courts. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the Court may extend 6th Amendment protection to children and teens.
What are the release dates for Matt Houston - 1982 The Ghost of Carter Gault 2-7?
Matt Houston - 1982 The Ghost of Carter Gault 2-7 was released on: USA: 28 October 1983
When did nlcc revenge start?
NLCC Revenge was started as NLCC Streetsville 139. it was located at the old pump room in Mississauga along with RCSCC Haida. The first CO was Lcdr(NL) Steve Gault The corps came into being in 1981. Signed Lcdr (NL) Steve Gault (retired)
In what case did the US Supreme Court establish that the waiver proceeding is a critically important stage in the juvenile justice process?
Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966)Kent was the first appeal the US Supreme Court accepted involving the juvenile justice system, and may only have been considered because it involved transfer of a case from juvenile court to US District (criminal) Court. Prior to Kent, the Court had refused to review juvenile cases, regardless of constitutional issues raised, on the basis that "juvenile courts are not criminal courts."BackgroundMorris Kent was arrested at the age of 16 on charges of breaking and entering, robbery and rape. As a juvenile, Kent was subject to the jurisdiction of juvenile court unless the assigned judge waived jurisdiction and transferred the case to adult court. In this instance, the judge decided Kent should be tried in US District Court, and waived jurisdiction.Kent's attorney filed a motion for a waiver hearing to argue the jurisdictional transfer, but the juvenile court judge ignored the petition. The defendant's attorney next filed a motion to dismiss in US District Court on the grounds that the juvenile court waiver was invalid for lack of due process. The motion was overruled, and Kent was subsequently tried and convicted on six counts of breaking and entering and robbery, but acquitted of the two counts of rape by reason of insanity.Kent's defense counsel preserved on appeal the objection to the juvenile court waiver being issued without a hearing, but the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling, holding that the transfer procedure was conducted properly and was valid.US Supreme CourtThe question before the Court was whether Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protection extended to juveniles, and whether this protection had been violated when the juvenile court judged transferred jurisdiction on Morris Kent's case without permitting a waiver hearing where counsel could argue on the client's behalf.The Supreme Court held that certain due process protections, including the right to a hearing on the waiver motion, and the right to legal representation at that hearing, applied to children as well as adults.Justice Abe Fortas delivered the Opinion of the Court, which held that that waivers were an important discretionary act that, at the time it was applied to Morris, had no rules or standards for judicial decision-making. The arbitrary nature of the waiver made a hearing mandatory prior to execution.Fortas wrote: "As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, 'the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile."The Court then set forth eight determining factors to be used in considering the jurisdiction under which a juvenile should be tried:The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver.Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner.Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury resulted.The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i.e., whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment (to be determined by consultation with the United States Attorney).The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living.The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions.The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court."It will be the responsibility of any officer of the Court's staff assigned to make the investigation of any complaint in which waiver of jurisdiction is being considered to develop fully all available information which may bear upon the criteria and factors set forth above. Although not all such factors will be involved in an individual case, the Judge will consider the relevant factors in a specific case before reaching a conclusion to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for trial under the adult procedures of that Court."The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling and remanded the case to US District Court to be heard de novo.Kent opened the door to the Court's examination of juvenile court proceedings and children's rights in other cases, including In Re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967), the landmark Supreme Court case that first challenged the constitutionality of juvenile justice statutes.
. What was the significance of Supreme Court's ruling in In re Gault?
It was determined that minors are entitled to constitutional protections.
The case In Re Gault?
What was the most significant outcome of the U.S supreme court decision in re gault you ask? A. The decision extended the right of due process to juveniles. Thank you for reading this hope you except it:)
What was the significance of Supreme Court's ruling in In re Gault?
Juveniles have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. Juveniles also have the right to confront witnesses against them. These rights were established by the In re Gault Court case. In the 1967 case, 15-year-old Gerald Gault of Phoenix, Arizona, was charged with making indecent telephone calls to a neighbor. His parents were not informed of his arrest. During the hearing that followed, Gault did not have an attorney present and the neighbor was not questioned. The judge sentenced Gault to a reformatory until the age of 21-a period of six years. If Gault had been an adult, his sentence would have been a $50 fine and a few months in jail.
What was the significance of supreme courts ruling in re gault?
It was determined that minors are entitled to constitutional protections.
This 1967 court case established several legal rights for juveniles?
In Re Gault
What is the birth name of Shakari Gault?
Shakari Gault's birth name is Shakari Gault.
What is the birth name of Willie Gault?
Willie Gault's birth name is Willie James Gault.
When was Stanley Gault born?
Stanley Gault was born in 1926.
How tall is Willie Gault?
Willie Gault is 6' 1".
How tall is Shakari Gault?
Shakari Gault is 5' 2".
What was controversial central subject of the Gerald Gault case?
In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967), was a landmark US Supreme Court decision which established that under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults such as the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.
What nicknames does Willie Gault go by?
Willie Gault goes by Willie James Gault.
