When writing a legal brief, you want to use the court’s citation as your title. Example: In Re Gault 1967 387 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed.2d 527. This is to allow the reader to refer back to the original case if necessary. Now the typical purpose of writing a legal brief is for use in court, the legal brief tells you about the case, what happened, what was the courts decision; this allows the defense attorney and the prosecutor a quick reference guide to help drive a point to the judge in your favor.
For the purpose of this legal brief is to be able to understand what to look for in a court case, what changes were made, how society was affected, and to learn about the court system. This does not mean it can not be used as a legal brief for use in court, it is the same outcome just from a different perspective. Now most legal briefs are limited to one page per court case, the Gault Decision on the other hand is a very complex case because it has seven issues that are discussed; therefore there are seven holdings and seven rationals. The most difficult part of reading the court case is finding all of the holdings and rationals because some of them are not stated specifically. One key to writing a legal brief and to understand the court case, are the footnotes at the bottom of each page are very important.
A legal brief has five parts; facts, procedure, issues, holding, and rational. The facts section of the legal brief is first; in this section you want to state what happened (why the person is on trial and what are they on trial for). Use caution when writing this section, most people write more in this section than any other, this section should actually be the shortest. You only want to include facts that are relevant to the case.
The next section is procedure, in this section you will include the legal processes that have occurred before this particular trial. In the Gault Decision, it is a Supreme Court case, so there were a few trials before it reached the supreme court. You must include any previous legal actions that have taken place.
The third section is, the issue that the court is dealing with. Most cases only have one or two issues, but the Gault Decision has seven. The fourth section of the legal brief is the holding. A holding is what the court ruled in that particular case. The holding just simply states what the courts decision is. The Fifth section is the rational, this is the longest section of your brief. When reading the court case, make sure to read carefully and read the footnotes at the bottom of each page. The rational is why the court ruled their decision. Read carefully most cases do not state specifically after the holding, what led them to that holding. Rather the rational, the reason for the courts decision is before the holding is stated. Make sure to include anything that the court discussed,any court cases that are relevant to the holding.
The final section of the legal brief is not necessarily in every legal brief, it is only when there is a dissent, which when a Supreme Court Justice disagrees with the rest of the judges. In the decent you want to include why the judge dissented from the other judges and what their decision would have been. Take your time writing your legal brief, make sure you are including only the things that are relevant to the court’s decision. Below, is my legal brief for the Gault Decision, it is written in order. Please use it as an example for yourself when you have to write a legal brief. If you have questions while writing your brief, please leave me a comment and I will try to help you.
I. Facts: Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old delinquent, was on probation when he and a friend were accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. The neighbor called the police and reported that the comments were offensive and of a sexual nature. Gerald was arrested without his parents being notified of the situation. The two delinquents were taken to a juvenile detention home.
II. Procedure: The arresting officer filed a formal petition without any facts about the arrest, but suggested that the delinquent was in need of protection through the court. Gerald’s father and the accuser neglected to show up for the hearing for which the petition was for. During this hearing; no one was sworn in and no record of the proceedings was made. Following the hearing Gerald was sent back to the juvenile detention home. A few days later Gerald was released to his parents with no explanation for the incarceration.
A few days after Gerald’s release, the court held a habeas corpus hearing in which the witness’s testimonies were different from the first hearing. The accuser did not report for this hearing, which was excused by the judge who states that “she did’nt have to be present at that hearing” (Gault 132, 1967). Gerald’s probation officers filed a referral report with the court without Gerald or his parent knowledge. The judge sentenced Gerald to the juvenile state industrial school until he reaches the age of minority (21).
A month and a half later Gerald’s attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus because the state of Arizona did not allow appeals in cases involving juveniles. The juvenile judge, “Judge McGhee was vigorously cross-examined as to the bases for his actions” (Gault 133, 1967). The judge testified that Gerald was a delinquent who had violated the law by making lewd comments towards a person, and he was repeatedly involved in “immoral matters” (133).
III. Issues: The Supreme Court acknowledges six issues as stated in In Re Gault 1967:
(1) Notice of the charges
(2) Right to counsel
(3) Right to confrontation and cross-examination
(4) Privilege against self-incrimination
(5) Right to a transcript of the proceedings
(6) Right to appellate review
(7) An issue not directly pointed out by the Supreme Court is that of due process
IV. Holding:
(1) Notice of the charges: The Supreme Court held that a juvenile and his or her parents must be notified in a timely fashion if the parents’ right to the custody of their child is in jeopardy and be informed of the specific issues to be discussed at trial.
(2) Right to counsel: The Supreme Court held that due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, is extended to delinquents. The court must notify the delinquent and the parents of the delinquent’s right to counsel, and that if they can not afford counsel the court will provide counsel for the delinquent.
(3) Right to confrontation and cross-examination: The Supreme Court held that there is no difference in sworn testimonies between the juvenile and criminal courts. In order to find the juvenile to be a delinquent the witness must have been available for sworn testimony cross-examination, and confrontation by the juvenile, in order to commit him or her to a detention center.
(4) Privilege against self-incrimination: The Supreme Court held that the United States “Constitution guarantees that no person shall be ‘compelled’ to be a witness against himself when he is threatened with deprivation of his liberty” (Gault 149, 1967). This right is to be extended to juveniles.
(5) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is to be denied. The Supreme Court of Arizona stated that there was no right to a transcript of court proceedings because there is not right to an appeal.
(6) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is to be denied. The Supreme Court of Arizona stated that there was no right to an appeal.
(7) The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process.
V. Rational:
(1) Notice of charges: The Supreme Court agrees that the parents and child be notified in a timely fashion of court proceedings; in order to prepare a defense. The purpose in this case, is that the parents were not given a timely notice that Gerald was going to be taken out of their custody. According to Arizona state law, in regards to the procedure for the petition filed with the court without parents’ knowledge, “after a preliminary inquiry by the court, a determination may be made ‘that formal jurisdiction should be acquired’. Thereupon the court may authorize a petition to be filed … It does not appear that this procedure was followed in the present case” (Gault 142, 1967). The main purpose for timely notification is to allow the juvenile time to prepare if he or she denies the charges against him or her.
(2) Right to counsel: The Supreme Court agrees with the Presidents Crime Commission, that counsel is to be appointed without request if there is a suspicion of coercion in the juvenile’s confession. The purpose for counsel in a juvenile court proceeding is to educate the juvenile about the law, to make sure that the child’s due process rights were not violated, to decide whether or not the juvenile has a defense and prepare and present that defense to the court. A probation officer can not serve as counsel for a juvenile nor can his or her parents. “The child ‘requires the guiding had of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him'” (Gault 143-144, 1967).
(3) Right to confrontation and cross-examination: The Supreme Court followed the recommendations from the Children’s Bureau’s “Standards for Juvenile and Family Courts” which states “that testimony should be under oath and that only competent, material and relevant evidence under rules applicable to civil cases should be admitted into evidence” (Gault 151, 1967). The Supreme Court found it unacceptable that the witness was not subpoenaed to court. In order to find the juvenile delinquent and send him or her to confinement until the age of 21, the witness must testify against the juvenile in court. This is the proof, that the juvenile is or is not a delinquent.
(4) Privilege against self-incrimination: The Supreme Court has upheld a person’s right for freedom. Certain procedures as the right against self-incrimination should always be implemented into court proceedings. Confessions given by children should be proceeded with caution and require further investigation to ensure the validity of the confession. “The ‘confession’ of Gerald Gault was first obtained by Officer Flagg, out of the presence of Gerald’s parents, without counsel and without advising him of his right to silence, as far as it appears” (Gault 151, 1967).
(5) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court agrees with the “Standards for Juvenile and Family Courts” which “recommends ‘written findings of fact, some form of record of the hearing’ and the right to appeal” (Gault 152, 1967). The court found this to be a violation of habeas corpus and could allow for an attempt to reconstruct a record.
(6) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court agrees with the “Standards for Juvenile and Family Courts” with regard that the “judge make clear to the child and family their right to appeal” (Gault 152, 1967). Again this could allow for a violation of habeas corpus and could allow for an attempt to reconstruct a record, “and to impose upon the Juvenile Judge the unseemly duty of testifying under cross-examination as to the events that transpired in the hearings before him” (Gault 152, 1967).
(7) The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not limited to adults; they should be extended to juveniles as well. The Supreme Court considered if Gerald had been an adult charged with the same crime, the maximum punishment would be two months in prison or a $50 fine. If Gerald had been an adult he would have had his rights protected; the right to notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination and the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court’s opinion is only relevant to the procedures that are to be followed at the adjudicatory stage.
VI. Decent: The dissenting judge is Justice Stewart; who stated that he would dismiss the appeal. Justice Stewart states; “The complete confusion of these separate constitutional doctrines in Part V of the Court’s opinion today stems, no doubt, from Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, a decision which I continue to believe was constitutionally erroneous” (Gault 153, 1967).
