A few years ago, we spent over five weeks in a courtroom in Glynn County, Georgia. We were involved in a highly emotional case with 21 plaintiffs, primarily children of opioid addicts, suing under Georgia’s Drug Dealer Liability Act. The human toll was enormous: neglectful parents and many lives shattered. It was the nation’s first such case, and all eyes were on the jury. Twelve citizens from coastal Georgia deliberated for nearly two days. They concluded our client was not liable on any count. The Supreme Court of Georgia later upheld the verdict unanimously.
This case is shared not to revisit the specifics, but to highlight what the jury faced. They spent weeks with grieving families but rigorously followed the law. They resisted a compelling emotional narrative and assessed whether the evidence supported the claims. They succeeded, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Between us, we have handled over a hundred jury trials, and we have never encountered a jury that did not take its responsibilities seriously. Ordinary people, removed from their daily lives, typically rise to the challenge of jury duty. While juries aren’t perfect, they represent genuine seriousness, a rarity in current American public life.
Gallup reported in 2024 that confidence in the judicial system had plummeted to a record-low 35 percent, mirroring a general loss of faith in institutions, including Congress and the presidency. Yet, many Americans who distrust these institutions also seek ways to avoid jury service, a responsibility that remains deeply theirs.
Jury duty pulls ordinary citizens directly into democracy, unlike elected officials or social media influencers. It demands them to listen to differing arguments, evaluate evidence, deliberate with those they didn’t choose, and make life-impacting decisions.
In much of American life, individuals select their news, communities, and politics, often evading disagreement. The jury system disrupts this pattern, placing citizens alongside strangers from different walks of life and asking them to follow a common legal standard. It calls for patience, attention, and humility in following evidence over personal bias.
Jury service is inconvenient and can be financially burdensome, but it shouldn’t be avoided. This burden underscores its importance. The Founders included citizens in justice, understanding that self-government requires active practice, not mere inheritance. While Americans often discuss rights, conversations about duties and their performance are less common, though equally crucial to our constitutional model.
Public life now often feels remote and performative, amplified by social media’s outrage-driven platforms. The jury room, however, is serious and unscripted. It requires genuine engagement with disagreement, a valuable civic lesson, especially in this polarized nation.
Anniversaries, like America’s 250th, are straightforward. Citizenship, however, is challenging. A republic’s survival depends on more than patriotic expression; it relies on everyday people embracing the discipline liberty demands. Jury duty is one of these necessary responsibilities. It’s time to view it as an opportunity, not an inconvenience, as it remains the last bastion of true democratic responsibility where ordinary Americans consistently meet the challenge.
Randy Jordan and Chris Jordan are trial lawyers with HunterMaclean in Savannah, Georgia. They served as co-lead counsel in Poppell v. McKesson, which yielded the first private citizen-brought opioid verdict, upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Leave a Reply