Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

In re Gault (1967)

Read a random definition: land agent

A quick definition of In re Gault (1967):

In re Gault (1967) is a court case that says kids who are accused of breaking the law have the right to be treated fairly. This means they have the right to know what they are being accused of, to have a lawyer to help them, and to not be forced to say anything that could get them in trouble. The court said that these rights are important because they help protect our freedom.

A more thorough explanation:

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established that juvenile criminal defendants have the right to Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Court ruled that due process of law is the foundation of individual freedom and that juvenile defendants are entitled to the same legal protections as adult defendants. This includes the right to:

  • Timely notice of criminal charges
  • Confront and cross-examine witnesses
  • Not testify against oneself
  • Representation by a lawyer

For example, if a 16-year-old is accused of a crime, they have the right to know exactly what they are being accused of and to have a lawyer represent them in court. They also have the right to question any witnesses who testify against them.

The Court also held that written notice of the charges must be given to the child and their parents or guardian "at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in advance of hearing to permit preparation." This means that the child and their family must be informed of the charges against them in writing and given enough time to prepare a defense.

Overall, the In re Gault case was a significant step forward in protecting the rights of juvenile defendants and ensuring that they receive fair treatment under the law.

in propria persona | in re

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
MIAMI A
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:55
How does one know if they are UR1 or UR2?
[] AromaticTroubledDormouse
20:56
CONGRATS MACAQUE!
TY
got a random stanford email and almost had a heart attack
ALSO CONGRATS!
Congrats1!
21:15
Miami A, yall I'm so excited I could cry.
21:15
Feel like I can finally stop holding my breath!! Whew!!!
[] baddestbunny
22:16
every time I get accosted by a strange man who follows me around because my male coworkers were too busy talking to walk me back to my car I get closer to saying we need to bring back traditional gender roles
Dkk
22:32
Nice! @Macaque
Dkk
22:32
@Aromatic, Have to guess.
Dkk
22:33
That sucks @Bunny do you have to go to the hospital?
[] baddestbunny
22:40
I said accosted not assaulted
23:35
guys. my notre dame address just went long is this good or bad
1a2b3c4d26z
23:37
Oooooo me too
23:37
omg is this good or bad
Dkk
23:47
Idk if gender roles are gunna fix that then.
23:49
it looks like most people who applied in october last cycle didn't get a decision until january... does it even mean anything that our addresses went long??
hows ED 2 compared to ED 1?
Dkk
0:10
No idea
windyMagician
0:34
reporting live to say my ndls address also went long
does it mean anything ^
Dkk
2:21
NDLS and Fordham took a very long time last year. It's good info for people to know.
[] baddestbunny
4:29
let’s get after it boys and girls
Dkk
5:21
I gtg to bed soon.
Dkk
5:22
Big day today. Gunna be a crazy one. I will sleep through the first half.
good morning lsd it is 5 am EST
also jazzy my ndls address went long ages ago i sadly do not think it means anything
my stanford address also went long LOL i think at most it's an indicator it's under review
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.