In re Gault
In re Gault  (1967). 
3 
Gerald “Jerry” Gault, a 15-year-old Arizona boy, was taken into custody for making obscene calls to 
a neighbor’s house. After the neighbor, Mrs. Cook filed charges, Gault and his friend were taken to the 
Juvenile Detention Home. At the time he was taken into custody, his parents were at work and the 
arresting officers made no effort to contact them nor did they leave a note about the arrest or where they 
were taking their son. They finally learned of his whereabouts from the family of the friend who arrested 
with him. 
When the habeas corpus hearing was held two months later, Mrs. Cook was not present, no one was 
sworn in prior to testifying, and no notes were taken. He was released and scheduled to reappear a few 
months later for an adjudication hearing. In the following hearing, again, Mrs. Cook was not present and 
again, no official transcripts of the proceeding were taken. 
The official charge was “making lewd phone calls.” The maximum penalty for an adult charge with this 
was a $50 fine or not more than two months in jail. Gault was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years in 
juvenile detention. 
Gault’s parents filed a writ of habeas corpus which was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court ruled that juveniles are entitled to due process rights when the court proceedings may result 
in confinement to a secure facility. The specific due process rights highlighted in this case include (1) fair 
notice of charges; (2) right to counsel; (3) right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; and (4) privilege 
against self-incrimination. 
The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to juvenile 
defendants as well as adult defendants. “Juvenile court history has again demonstrated that unbridled 
discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.” 
In re Winship
In re Winship  (1970) 
4 
Samuel Winship, a 12-year old boy living in New York, was charged with stealing $112 from a woman’s 
purse in a store, a charge that “if done by an adult would constitute the crime or crimes of Larceny.” Since 
he committed a crime, the charges of juvenile delinquency were justified. Winship was found delinquent 
in a New York juvenile court, using the civil law standard of proof, “preponderance of the evidence.” 
Winship was committed to a state training school for an initial period of 18 months with the annual 
extension of no more than six years. 
Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 
3. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967) 
4. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970) 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
400