IN THE GAULT (1967) CASE, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWED AN ARIZONA SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT AFFIRMED THE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION OF A 15-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH MAKING LEWD TELEPHONE CALLS. IT WAS HELD THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A CHILD TO BE AFFORDED THE FOLLOWING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN A DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDING THAT COULD RESULT IN COMMITMENT TO A STATE INSTITUTION: ADEQUATE WRITTEN NOTICE, NOTIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RETAINED OR APPOINTED COUNSEL, THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. IN THE WINSHIP CASE (1970) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF WHAT QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A CHILD A DELINQUENT. THE COURT HELD THAT GUILT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN A CHILD IS CHARGED AS A DELINQUENT WITH COMMITTING AN ACT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT AND WHEN SUCH AN ADJUDICATION COULD RESULT IN CONFINEMENT IN A STATE INSTITUTION. THESE TWO DECISIONS ARE PREDICATED UPON THE CONCEPT OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DO NOT EXTEND TO JUVENILES ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS PREVIOUSLY AFFORDED STATE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. IN ANOTHER DECISION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, BREED VERSUS JONES (1975), IT WAS HELD THAT JEOPARDY ATTACHES AT THE ADJUDICATORY PHASE OF A DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING AND THAT PROSECUTORS ARE BARRED FROM RETRYING A CHILD, EITHER AS A DELINQUENT OR AS AN ADULT, ONCE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED AT A DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATORY HEARING. STATE COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS DEFINED IN THE GAULT, WINSHIP, AND JONES CASES ATTACH DURING ADJUDICATORY PROCEEDINGS WHEN A JUVENILE IS CHARGED WITH AN ACT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT AND WHEN THE JUVENILE FACES POSSIBLE INCARCERATION. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE TWO-PRONGED TEST BE ABANDONED, SINCE IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SPECIAL BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS IMPOSED ON JUVENILES BY STATE LAW SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR AGE AND IT FOCUSES ONLY ON EXTREME FORMS OF LIBERTY DEPRIVATION SUCH AS CONFINEMENT IN STATE INSTITUTIONS RATHER THAN ON FOSTER CARE, IN FAVOR OF A PRINCIPLE THAT INCORPORATES ADEQUATE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS. STATE COURT DECISIONS ARE REVIEWED AND ANALYZED AS THEY AFFECT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF JUVENILES. OTHER RELEVANT CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)