THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA HELD THAT A JUVENILE CANNOT WAIVE HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS UNTIL HE HAS CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY, PARENT, OR OTHER ADULT INTERESTED IN HIS WELFARE, AND THAT THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT A JUVENILE CHARGED WITH DELINQUENCY, BASED UPON ACTS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, MUST BE ACCORDED THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC, BUT NOT A JURY, TRIAL. THE FIRST PORTION OF THIS CASE COMMENTARY IS DEVOTED TO THE UNANIMOUS OPINION THAT THE JUVENILE IN QUESTION WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO WAIVE HIS RIGHTS WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO CONSULT WITH HIS MOTHER OR AN ATTORNEY. THE MOTHER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE BOY'S RIGHTS NOR DID SHE KNOW A WAIVER WAS BEING SIGNED; AN ATTORNEY WAS NOT PRESENT. THE SECOND PORTION CONCERNS THE DIVIDED OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF JURY TRIALS FOR JUVENILES. THE MAJORITY HELD THAT IF THE ACTS OF THE JUVENILE WOULD BE A FELONY IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, A PUBLIC TRIAL, BUT NOT A JURY TRIAL, IS MANDATED. RELATED CASES ARE CITED IN THE TEXT. MAJORITY, CONCURRING, AND DISSENTING OPINIONS ARE SUMMARIZED.