Gault V. United States, S. 1, 87S.Ct. 1428, 18L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)I. Facts: A 15-year-old delinquent, Gérald Gault, and a friend were arrested after being accused of making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. Gérald's parents were not informed of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to enroll in the state industrial school until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney sought a writ of habeas corpus against the State of Arizona for violating the minor's due process rights under the 14th Amendment. The Arizona Superior Court and the Arizona State Supreme Court both denied the petition, ruling that the minor's due process rights had not been violated.II. Issues: Whether Defendant's Fourteenth Amendment Rights Under the Due Process Clause Have Been Violated? Does due process apply to minors the same as adults? The Supreme Court addressed the following issues in Re Gault 1967: (1) Was there a question of due process (2) Notice of charges (3) Notice of right to counsel and/or or appointment (4) Right to confrontation and accusatory cross-examination (5) The right of the accused against self-incrimination (6) The right to receive a transcript/recording of the proceedings ( 7) The right to appeal III. Decision: (1) Based on the case law Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, the Supreme Court held that the essential elements of due process must be respected. The first decision rendered by the Supreme Court concerned the indirect question of due process. The Supreme Court has ruled that in juvenile court proceedings, the minor must be treated fairly and afforded the essential elements of due process. (2) Notice of charges: Adequate written notice shall be provided to the minor and his or her h.... .. middle of paper ......om. The Court concluded that Officer Flagg had collected and used Gerald Gault's confession against him without the presence of his parents or a lawyer and without ever informing the minor of his right to remain silent.(6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule on the question of the defendant's right to receive a transcript. (7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule on the appeal since its decision was that this case should be remanded to the lower courts.VI. Opinion: Judge Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the case remanded. Justices Black and White agreed with the Court's opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversarial proceedings..