Words: 325
He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law, can’t be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. ” U. S. V. Bagley Respondent, Bagley, was indicted in violation of federal narcotics and firearms statutes. Before trial, respondent filed a discovery motion, requesting whether any governmental witnesses had been compensated, in any way, for their testimony.
The government replied that they had not. Two of the government’s witnesses, O’Connor and Mitchell were state law enforcement officers who had been working undercover to assist the TAFT (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). At trial, Respondent was found guilty of the narcotics charges, but not the firearm charges. Sometime later, he filed requests for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, and found out hat O’Connor and Mitchell had been paid for their testimony against him.
He moved to have his sentence vacated. In Re Gaul Appellants’ 1 5-year-old son, Gerald Gaul, was taken into custody as the result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. After hearings before a Juvenile court Judge, Gerald was ordered committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he should reach majority. Appellants brought a habeas corpus action in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona
Juvenile Code and the procedure actually used in Garage’s case, on the ground of denial of various procedural due process rights. The State Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the writ. Agreeing that the constitutional guarantee of due process applies to proceedings in which Juveniles are charged as delinquents, the court held that the Arizona Juvenile Code impliedly includes the requirements of due process in delinquency proceedings, and that such due process requirements were not offended by the procedure leading to Garage’s commitment.