As I awoke at 6 a.m. one morning a couple weeks ago to hop on the PVTA and go to Northampton to serve-along with two other Amherst students who had been called-I could not ignore the ridiculousness of this regulation. As we sat with blank expressions and soaking wet from the rain, making our way to perform our civic duty, I couldn't help but wonder the utility of having two non-state residents at the court.
And we were not the only ones, as indicated by that student's surprise upon receiving her letter-tons of college students are being called recently and, if you haven't gotten your summons yet, you might as well expect one. Apparently, the Massachusetts courts were lacking in jurors given that a huge percentage of the population is composed of college students and filled the gaps by calling out-of-state students who live in Massachusetts during the majority of the year.
The law prevents an accused person of actually receiving a trial by a jury of his peers; I do not live in Massachusetts and am therefore not the defendant's peer. If a student hails from out of state-or even from another country and has established citizenship-and becomes a permanent Massachusetts resident, more power to him. But I consider myself a Maryland resident who is visiting for school. The option that some lawyers sometimes try to exploit of moving the trial to another location for the benefit of either party appears, in a way, here. For example, to have a jury filled with college students from California would have the effect of moving the trial to that state. As much as I was informed that I was obligated to perform my civic duty on that day, it is equally important that the defendants involved receive the trial they were promised: one with a jury of their peers, which I believe involves one filled with Massachusetts residents, not with Marylanders.
As I filled out a form upon arrival, I inquired about the blank for "City, State." "Do you want my home address or school address?" I asked, to which the officer replied, "Oh, it doesn't matter." How could it not? Why is it apparently unimportant where the jurors come from? Perhaps the laws and social norms for acceptable conduct do not differ that drastically between my county and Hampshire County. But what about in Texas? Or Los Angeles? Or New York City? Sure, maybe most cases in Northampton are just petty theft or even motor violations, but if the courts wish to be official and consistent in forcing every citizen called for duty to serve, so as to uphold the legitimacy of the system, they should also be particular about ensuring the fairness of the jury selection process.
Speaking of forms, I was left wondering how the Hampshire County court even obtained my home address-not being a registered voter or bank account holder here, I must assume it was the College who dispensed the information. To which my parents, the voice of the '60s, promptly responded, "In my day we would have been in the streets protesting! We would have been outraged at the invasion of privacy!" (to which I of course replied that no one cares these days). If I didn't before, this was certainly enough to force me to care.
There are several potential reasons one could cite against this case, such as the fact that jury service can be postponed up until one year after the initial summoned date. This is all well and good, except for half of the upcoming year I will be out of the country and, for a few more months after that, I will be out of the state. So, not having classes on Fridays, I naturally attempted to move my date to the Friday during October break. The problem was, I was then told that court isn't held on Fridays and that by that point "by law" I could not change my date again. If a student has class on the day that he or she must serve, most schools in Massachusetts consider it an "excused absence." This is little consolation to those who miss exams or an important lecture, not to mention that I at least would like my tuition money back per class missed. Adults in the "real world" are paid by their employers for work time missed, but where is our reimbursement? Before any financial aid, the average student pays around $65-100 per class; sure, maybe that's being a bit picky, but honestly, who wouldn't appreciate the refund?
For anyone who would tell me that the time commitment is not that burdensome, consider the inconvenience for missing even one day of class. College students are typically called for trials within the "one day or one trial" system, by which jurors are obligated to serve for one day, or for the duration of one trial (which may last up to three days and, in rare cases, a week). Most students then only end up serving for a day, but what about those who must stay longer? Especially for those with active work schedules and various extracurricular activities, getting on that PVTA bus at six a.m. for a couple days can wreak havoc on an already busy and stressed college student's life. Leaving this system in place indicates to me that Massachusetts does not value my education as much as my time sitting in a room for three hours before being sent home, not having served. This paradox is particularly evident when I consider that the tons of colleges and universities crammed into this state is what led to the problem in the first place.
I do not deny the importance of keeping our trial by jury system functional, but this does not appear to be the best way to do it. If a person stands accused of a crime in Hampshire County, let him have his right to be tried by a jury of his peers: Hampshire County residents.