Before the Gault case, kids in trouble landed in a paternalistic juvenile court system. The juvenile system did not give kids basic due process rights under the Constitution. They did not have the same protections as adults who committed similar crimes. That changed after an Arizona boy was arrested for making an obscene phone call to his neighbor.
The juvenile court system began in Chicago after Illinois passed the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. By 1925, there were juvenile courts in every state except for Wyoming and Maine. The idea behind these early juvenile courts was a noble one, but it was also flawed. They applied the “parens patriae” doctrine. This means the court assumed the role of the parent, and case decisions were to be based on the judge’s idea of “the best interests of the child.” Unfortunately, some judges were ill prepared to take on the role of benevolent parent. They had no training in psychology or child development. Some believed kids in trouble were “bad seeds” and strict discipline was the best way to handle juvenile delinquency. Many kids ended up being harshly punished for minor crimes. That is exactly what happened to Jerry Gault.
The Facts of the Case.
The year was 1964. Gerald Gault was a 15-year old boy living in Globe, Arizona. Both his parents worked, and Jerry spent his time hanging out with his buddies after school. His problems began when Jerry and his friend, Ronald Lewis, made an obscene telephone call to their neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Mrs. Cook called the police, and on Monday, June 8, 1964, Ronald and Jerry were arrested. Unfortunately, at that time Jerry was still on probation from a prior incident where another boy stole a woman’s wallet. Because Jerry was in the other boy’s company at the time, he was also charged and placed on probation.
Jerry’s parents were both at work, and no one from the sheriff’s office bothered to call them. The deputy simply hauled the boy off to the Children’s Detention Center. When Mrs. Gault came home that evening, she was surprised that Jerry was not at home. She sent his older brother out to look for him. It was only then, she learned from the Lewis family of Jerry’s arrest. When the Gault’s arrived at the Detention Center, they were not allowed to see their son. Apparently, a succession of officers grilled Jerry over many hours pushing for a confession. Jerry was not allowed to have a lawyer or one of his parents present during questioning. Jerry admitted he dialed the phone but denied making obscene comments.
There was a hearing in juvenile court the following day, June 9. Although the arresting officer had filed a petition with the court listing the charges, neither Jerry nor his parents were allowed to see it. They did not get access to the petition until two months after the hearing. The hearing was informal with no transcript or recording, no written record, and no witness testimony. The judge questioned Jerry who had no lawyer and was never advised of his right to remain silent. There are conflicting reports on what was said at the hearing. The judge claimed Jerry admitted making the lewd remarks; the Gaults deny Jerry made those admissions. The sheriff’s office took Jerry back to the Detention Center after the hearing. He was released in his parents’ custody two days later with another hearing scheduled for June 15, 1964.
The Gault family returned to court on the scheduled date. Despite the family’s request, Mrs. Cook was not present to identify the boy who made the lewd comments. Jerry again testified that he dialed the phone, but Ronald was the one who made the remarks. According to Judge McGhee’s recollection, Jerry admitted to making some of the lewd comments. Jerry denies that. It is difficult to know the truth because there is no transcript or recording. Jerry still did not have a lawyer. At the end of the hearing, Judge McGhee declared Jerry a delinquent minor and committed him to six years at the Arizona State Industrial School. The Arizona Industrial School was basically a prison.
Jerry was to remain incarcerated until he turned 21. This was the state of the law in 1964: a 15-year old kid gets a six-year sentence. An adult, charged with the same crime under A.R.S. § 13-337, would have had a maximum prison sentence of two months and a fine ranging from $5-$5O. Jerry’s parents filed a writ of habeas corpus demanding their son’s release. The writ was their only option. At the time, there was no right to appeal decisions in juvenile cases.
Issue Before the Court: is Due Process Required in a Minor’s Delinquency Case When there is a Possibility of Incarceration.
The writ of habeas corpus action was based on the ultimate issue in the case – were Jerry Gault and his parents denied due process of law under the constitution when Jerry was adjudicated as a habitually delinquent minor? The Gaults claimed the law was unconstitutional because their son was denied due process. He was questioned without a parent or responsible adult present; he was not provided with a lawyer; and he was not given notice of the charges or a chance to cross examine his accuser. The State of Arizona argued that juvenile court was different than adult criminal court, and those protections were not needed.
When the Gault family petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for a writ, the Court responded by kicking the case back to Judge McGhee for a rehearing. At the 2nd hearing, Judge McGhee confirmed his earlier decision, stating that Jerry Gault was “a child who habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others.” McGhee declared Jerry to be “habitually dangerous.” The only evidence for that statement was a vague report that Jerry had somehow been involved in the theft of a baseball glove several years earlier when he was 12 or 13. There was no police action, and no charges were ever brought on that earlier complaint. The family continued to pursue their quest for a writ of habeas corpus, right up to the United States Supreme Court.
Ruling in the Case.
On May 15, 1967, the highest court in the country handed down its answer. The United States Supreme Court, with an eight to one majority, held that Gerald Gault had been denied due process of law under the U.S. Constitution. It held that minors, accused of crimes, must be given many of the same rights as adults. It reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new ruling that would comply with constitutional law.
Analysis of the Issues.
The Supreme Court found many deficiencies in the way the Gault case was handled. Justice Abe Fortas stated in his opinion that Jerry and his parents needed to be informed at the beginning of the exact nature and extent of the charges. That didn’t happen. The opinion reasoned that to be adequate notice of the charges, it must be timely and specific. The notice given to the Gault family was neither. The Gaults never waived their right to notice of the charges. There is nothing in the record to suggest they did.
The Court also noted that Jerry was denied the right to counsel, and there was no suggestion that Jerry or his family had ever waived the right to an attorney. Under the Arizona statute, the probation officer was the one to represent the interests of the child. However, Jerry’s probation officer was also the Superintendent of the detention home where Jerry was confined. Since, that was a conflict of interest. The Court reasoned that neither the probation officer nor the judge was able to represent the boy’s interests. He had a right to independent counsel. If he could not afford a lawyer, one must be appointed to represent him.
Yet another violation of due process was failing to inform Jerry of his 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate him. The court threw out the “confession” for several reasons. His parents were not there when he made his so-called confession to the police; he was not offered a lawyer; and he was never told what the charge was. Moreover, there was no signed statement by Jerry and no recording to document if there ever was a confession. If there was, what conduct did he admit? No one knows. Jerry claims he dialed the phone but did not make the comments. Judge McGhee contends the boy admitted making some of the obscene statements.
Without a confession, what was left? Mrs. Cook never formally identified Jerry. She never testified in court and never gave a sworn statement. All that was left to the case was hearsay – informal statements of wrongdoing. There was no case.
Conclusion
The Gault case went a long way toward changing juvenile courts by abolishing the old paternal system that operated on the notion that judges and probation officers know best. While the Gault case gave juveniles many of the due process protections afforded adults, it did not give minors the right to a jury trial in a delinquency proceeding. Today, minors are still judged in a separate system, but they now have rights. What happened to Jerry Gault? He joined the army and retired after 23 years of distinguished service to his country.
Resources
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/116
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/1/
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-in-re-gault
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118524275.ejdj0008
