Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

In re Gault (1967)

Read a random definition: indictable misdemeanor

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
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:06
it means you will not be rejected today and may be accepted or WL in the future
Just got my Michigan rejection
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.