<p>For the record here, my husband and I have both served jury duty very regularly every 3-4 years here in AZ. I believe in and support the system. I also believe that it is a hardship for some people to serve. Those people are allowed to present their reasons to the court and get waivers. Here in AZ ( and apparently CA) making a student miss classes is considered a hardship and students are allowed to defer their service to the summer months or duing their breaks. Now this works if the student resides in AZ (at least during their breaks). If the student is living oos permanently (both during the school year and during the summer) then they are obviously not residing in AZ at all and need to register in whatever state they are in. The problem with the MA laws is the students who legally reside OOS (and return to their homes over summer and breaks as our daughter does) don't really have the option of deferring service to a time they are not in school. They are only IN MA during the time they are in school. They are also then being required to serve in two different states. The jury commissioner here in AZ assures me she is on the list here and will be called at some point. My daughter intends to remain a legal resident and registered voter in the state of AZ and has no desire to change that. As others have indicated these students are also being asked to serve in a state where they have no voice. They are not allowed to vote on the very laws that are affecting them or for the people running for local offices.</p>
<p>There are plenty of breaks during which students can in fact serve jury duty without missing classes. Harvard and MIT are just about to go on spring break. January term is another time students can serve; or they can delay until the day after exams. They do have the option, if deferring, of specifiying a day when they will be available. I don't really see a problem.</p>
<p>My daughter just enjoyed a spring break at home in AZ. Her dorm closed during the week of spring break. She had to be out of her dorm by the first Sat. morning of break and could not return to her dorm until 10AM on the last Sunday...with classes starting on Monday. The dorms CLOSE during every break and if the student stays in town you must pay for a hotel room...Not as easy to stay as you would propose.</p>
<p>Sorry, I did not say that being on jury duty is painless or does not entail expenses. Your D did not have to miss classes in order to be on jury duty. The card does say that recipients have the option of specifying an alternative date.</p>
<p>Rdkm, my son is a BU freshman and got his jury duty notice before spring break. I started a similar thread back then. I was shocked to learn that Massachusetts can summon college students who are not legal residents of the state.</p>
<p>marite: I don't know if I would have convicted without some scientific test, like the blood alcohol test (breathalyzers can be gamed). I guess I have been watching too much CSI--show me the trace evidence!!</p>
<p>Ell:</p>
<p>That's what I felt, too. There was too much discrepancy between the two accounts for me to feel comfortable.</p>
<p>Marite and ell,
As a former prosecutor, I hope I would have had the sense to eliminate both of you as potential jurors! Too much CSI. ;) ;)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>If we want juries to be truly representative cross-sections, we all have to serve.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>But momof3sons, both sides don't want truly representative cross-sections of the public on the jury--each side wants a jury that they think will be sympathetic to their side of the case, right (without running into constitutional problems of course)?</p>
<p>ell,
You're absolutely right on target. Notwithstanding anything I said in a courtroom, the last thing I would really want as a prosecutor would be a fair and impartial jury. Same for a defense attorney. We want people who we feel will be partial to our side of the story. That's why we need a cross-section of all citizens-so the prosecution and defense can each try to handpick their jury! (It rarely works, but we try.)</p>
<p>Momof3sons:</p>
<p>LOL! I never watch TV. Certainly not CSI! I actually thought I would be challenged by the defense attorney: I am too highly educated and have contributed to MADD. I just thought that the defendant's story sounded plausible and the police had failed to convince me beyond doubt. Oh well. I was only an alternate.</p>
<p>In HI, they let attorneys serve on the jury. Hubby was bumped from a jury once because it was a burglary & he admitted he had been burglarized once. Sometimes it's interesting to see who is bumped & who isn't. We've had very bright folks on juries & some very "dim" folks. It makes life pretty interesting, especially in LONG trials.</p>
<p>marite--too bad you were only an alternate. Looks like the defendant could have used your analytical mind in the jury room.</p>
<p>Marite and ell,
As a prosecutor, I would always look to excuse the "highly educated" as potential jurors. "They" overthink and overanalyze everything! ;)</p>
<p>Momof3sons:</p>
<p>LOL! This is Cambridge, MA, and there is a surfeit of highly educated folks. Between the professionals and the contributors to MADD, the defense attorney had used up his challenges by the time he got to me!</p>
<p>marite,
I see your point. Cambridge does have a bit of a different feel than Bronx County, NY!</p>
<p>In reading these posts, my overall impression is that the OP does not need a civics lesson. You don't have to be some lazy shirker to have a problem with a person being eligible for jury duty in two states. It seems (at least no one has said otherwise) that Massachusetts is the only state that expects people who are not residents (they would not be eligible for instate tuition, right?) to serve on their juries. You gotta wonder if they're having trouble getting their actual residents to serve.</p>
<p>I mean, I live in the state that exports the most college students compared to importing them, yet somehow we are able to seat our juries without tapping non-residents.</p>
<p>I think this is the issue, not the civic awareness of the OP or other posters who've shared this concern.</p>
<p>The OP combined a point about inconvenience--having to serve in the middle of classes and exams--with a point about the appropriateness of asking OOS students to serve on jury duty. </p>
<p>On the second point, the Middlesex Court is located in Cambridge. The population of Boston/Cambridge is about 690,000, of which over 130,000 are college students. If one takes away the old, the infirm, the young, and those with limited English, college students represent a very high proportion of the remaining pool. This is probably what prompted the MA legislature to pass this law.</p>
<p>In terms of inconvenience, asking a student who resides in Boston/Cambridge and has the possibility of specifying a date at which s/he can serve does not seem to me much more of an imposition than asking a MA resident who lives 3 hours away to serve.</p>
<p>I was called to jury duty about 2 years ago, and put on a panel. The case was going to be a long and emotionally draining one, and I admit to hoping I would not be put on the jury. As it turned out, after an entire day only 3 jurors were selected from a pool of 100.</p>
<p>This was the case: a 46-year-old woman went to the hospital for biopsy of a breast lump (which turned out to be benign). She was not only given a massive overdose of anesthesia, she was not monitored. She ended up a vegetable. There were two plaintiffs (the husband and someone else) with their lawyers, and six defendants (two anesthesiologists, a resident, the hospital, the surgeon) all with their lawyers. We were interviewed by all these lawyers publicly in the pool room and also, some of us, privately in a room across the hall. In between waiting to be called in one by one, we could hear all the lawyers screaming at one another.</p>
<p>They systematically eliminated anyone who showed any signs of intelligence or capacity for critical thought (highly educated or not). The three who were kept were dumb as posts.</p>
<p>We all got letter excusing us from any jury duty in any jurisdiction for 12 (!) years.</p>
<p>I don't agree that just because it is convenient for Mass makes it right. They're still being asked to assume residential duties without being given residential privileges. The population of Manhattan probably doubles during the day because of OOS commuters, but NYC doesn't ask them to sit on their juries, and rightly so, as they are already subject to another state's jury system.</p>