In Gallegos v. Colorado (1962) 370 U.S. 49, the defendant was 14 years old. After he was arrested, "he was held for five days during which time he saw no lawyer, parent or other friendly adult." (Gallegos v. State of Colorado, supra, 370 U.S. at p. 50.) He then signed a written confession. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held: "The youth of the petitioner, the long detention, the failure to send for his parents, the failure immediately to bring him before the judge of the Juvenile Court, the failure to see to it that he had the advice of a lawyer or a friend -- all these combine to make us conclude that the formal confession on which this conviction may have rested was obtained in violation of due process." (Id. at p. 55.) Apparently, before Gallegos confessed, he was advised of his right to counsel and of his right to remain silent. (Gallegos v. State of Colorado, supra, 370 U.S. at p. 54.) The Supreme Court found this not controlling, because: "A 14-year-old boy, no matter how sophisticated, is unlikely to have any conception of what will confront him when he is made accessible only to the police. That is to say, we deal with a person who is not equal to the police in knowledge and understanding of the consequences of the questions and answers being recorded and who is unable to know how to protect his own interests or how to get the benefits of his constitutional rights." (Id. at p. 54.) However, in Gallegos, the boy was held for five days, unable to see anyone including his mother, who tried repeatedly to see him. After five days in isolation, the boy signed a confession. (Id. at pp. 50, 54 8 L. Ed. 2d at pp. 326, 328.) In sum: In Gallegos v. Colorado (1962) the 14-year-old minor confessed during a five-day detention in which his mother tried unsuccessfully to see him and he had no contact with any lawyer or adult advisor. The court explained that the "five-day detention" gave the case "an ominous cast," which is not present in this case, in which the minor was detained for only half an hour. (Id. at p. 54.) Moreover, the Gallegos court's concern that, without adult advice, "a 14-year-old boy would not be able to know . . . such constitutional rights as he had," is not implicated in post-Miranda cases where the officer carefully advises the defendant of his constitutional rights. (Ibid.)