Gault V. United States, S. 1, 87S.Ct. 1428, 18L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)I. Facts: Fifteen-year-old delinquent Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making an obscene phone call to a neighbor. Gerald's parents were not informed of the situation. After the hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reaches the age of majority (21 years old). Gerald's attorney has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the minor's 14th Amendment due process rights. Both the Arizona Superior Court and the Arizona State Supreme Court rejected the act stating that the minor's rights to due process had not been violated.II. Issues: Were the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights violated under the Due Process Clause? Does Due Process apply to minors as well as adults? The Supreme Court addressed the following issues in the Re Gault 1967 case: (1) Was there a question of due process (2) Notification of charges (3) Notice of right to counsel and/or appointment (4) Right to confrontation and hearing 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 appealIII. Holding:(1) Based on the jurisprudence of Kent v. United States, 383 US 541, the Supreme Court held that the essential elements of due process must be followed. The Supreme Court's first position was on the indirect question of due process. The Supreme Court has held that in juvenile court proceedings the minor must be treated fairly and receive the essential elements of due process.(2) Notice of Charges: Adequate written notification must be given to the minor and his or her... .. .. half of the sheet ......om. The Court found that Officer Flagg took and used Gerald Gault's confession against him without his parents or any attorney present and without ever informing the minor of his right to remain silent.(6) Law to a transcript of the proceedings: the Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of the defendant's right to receive a transcript.(7) Right to Appellate Review: the Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeal because its decision was that this case should be sent back to the lower courts.VI. Opinion: Judge Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Arizona Supreme Court's ruling is reversed and the matter postponed. Justices Black and White agreed with the Court's opinion. Judge Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Judge Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversarial proceedings.