LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:

Child Cases | Juvenile Court

Gault, a teenager, was taken into custody after making an obscene phone call. His parents weren’t notified, and he wasn’t informed of his rights.
He was committed to a state school until age 21 during a hearing where he was not represented by counsel, the target of the call wasn’t present, and no transcript was made. Gault petitioned for habeas corpus.
US Supreme Court ruled that 14th Amendment Due Process protections apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and that the juvenile court’s proceedings were constitutional.
“being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court”

Juveniles are entitled to 14th Amendment Due Process protections during delinquency proceedings, including:
- Notice of charges
- Right to counsel
- Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
- Protection from self-incrimination

Michael C, a teenager, was arrested on suspected murder. After he was advised of his rights by police, Michael requested his probation officer, who wasn’t available; a lawyer was offered, but he declined.
Police proceeded with questioning, and Michael subsequently disclosed incriminating information, which he later sought to suppress in court.
CA Supreme Court ruled that the request for a probation officer does NOT trigger 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination. Michael knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent, consenting to continued questioning.

A juvenile’s request for a probation officer, rather than a lawyer, does NOT trigger 5th Amendment protections from self-incrimination.