In re Gault
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Five state courts also expressly declined to extend Gault to require jury trials or proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The 6 confirmed treatments are listed below; the other citing opinions either applied Gault, reported its treatment of another case, or repeated Allen v. Illinois's later history parenthetical.
5,393 later cases cite In re Gault; 128 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on In re Gault?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in Part
-
The Supreme Court rejected Gault's sweeping statement that the Constitution bars compelled self-incrimination whenever a person is threatened with loss of liberty, holding that incarceration alone does not trigger the full range of criminal procedural protections.
Allen v. Illinois · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
First, Gault’s sweeping statement that “our Constitution guarantees that no person shall be ‘compelled’ to be a witness against himself when he is threatened with deprivation of his liberty,” id., at 50, is plainly not good law. Although the fact that incarceration may result is relevant to the question whether the privilege against self-incrimination applies, Addington demonstrates that involuntary commitment does not itself trigger the entire range of criminal procedural protections.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The court declined to extend Gault to require a jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings, holding that due process could be afforded without a traditional jury.
State v. Turner · Supreme Court of Oregon · filed
Counsel have provided us with no data, and we have found none, relevant to the peculiar problems of children which would justify a holding at this time that due process of law cannot be afforded children without the intervention of a traditional jury as employed in criminal cases.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to anticipate an extension of Gault to jury trials or proof beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile proceedings.
In re Benn · Ohio Court of Appeals · filed
Our place in the judicial hierarchy clearly requires us to follow the rule of our immediate superior unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States changes the rule or gives a clearer signal that it will. This it has not done. With deference, but reluctance, we conclude that juveniles in this state, whose status is tested on matters criminal in adults, have no right to a jury trial nor to have their condition measured by standards of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Gault to require a jury trial in juvenile proceedings and left any such procedure to the legislature.
In re Johnson · Court of Appeals of Maryland · filed
Gault neither requires the conclusion nor foreshadows a decision by the Supreme Court that the constitutional right to a jury trial applies in a juvenile proceeding.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Gault to require a jury trial in juvenile delinquency proceedings, holding that denial of a jury was not error.
Hopkins v. Youth Court of Issaquena County · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed
We have carefully considered the arguments of appellant that the child should have been granted a jury trial under In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), and other cases. It is argued that trial by jury is a right in juvenile proceedings when the child may be detained for a substantial period of time upon being adjudged a delinquent. For the purposes of the question under consideration, the same commitment may be made of a juvenile delinquent whether he has committed an act which would constitute a felony, if he were an adult, as charged in the present case, or is one whose occupation, behavior, environment, or associations are injurious to his welfare or the welfare of other children, or who deserts his home, or who is habitually disobedient to or beyond the control of his parents, or in the other noncriminal ways, comes within the statutory definition of a "delinquent child." Miss. Code 1942 Ann., § 7187-02 (Supp. 1968). Our Youth Court Act provides that hearings shall be had without a jury and the Legislature has provided no procedure for jury trials. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying a jury trial.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Gault to require a jury trial for juveniles, concluding that a jury right was not part of due process.
A Minor v. State · Supreme Court of Nevada · filed
Although recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions lean toward projecting juvenile matters into the criminal arena (In re Winship, supra; Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966); Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)), our statute provides specifically that juvenile hearings are to be without a jury. Enough doubt has been cast upon the right to jury trial for juveniles to warrant our present conclusions that the right to a jury for children is not part of the due process guarantees.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Gault and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace