A few years ago in Glynn County, Georgia, a courtroom hosted a significant case over five and a half weeks. Involving twenty-one plaintiffs, mostly children of opioid addicts, they sued under Georgia’s Drug Dealer Liability Act. The plaintiffs’ stories were filled with loss and heartbreak, marked by neglected and deceased parents. This case was the first of its kind nationally, capturing public attention as everyone awaited the jury’s decision. After nearly two days of deliberation, twelve jurors from coastal Georgia found our client not liable on all counts. The Supreme Court of Georgia later upheld this verdict unanimously.
This recounting is not about revisiting the case’s arguments. It highlights what the jury accomplished. They spent weeks listening to families grappling with grief while staying true to the law. Faced with powerful emotions, they asked whether the evidence supported the claims. Their verdict aligned not with our perspective, but with the Supreme Court of Georgia’s.
Across our careers, having handled over a hundred jury cases, we have observed juries taking their responsibility seriously. Ordinary citizens, removed from their routines, often rise to meet the demands of jury service. Juries, while not infallible, display a seriousness that is increasingly rare in American public life. This seriousness is crucial today.
In 2024, Gallup reported a record-low confidence of 35% in the judicial system, reflecting a broader decline affecting Congress and the presidency. Yet, many who distrust institutions seek to avoid participating in jury duty, which is uniquely theirs. This contradiction is noteworthy as the U.S. marks its 250th year.
Jury duty remains one of the few democratic responsibilities where ordinary citizens, rather than officials or experts, take charge. It involves navigating complex debates, evaluating facts, and reaching decisions that impact lives. Participation calls citizens to engage directly, not merely critique from a distance.
America today is self-selecting. We choose our media, communities, politics, and even facts. Disagreement becomes something to ignore. Contrarily, the jury system assembles citizens from varied backgrounds, urging them to adhere to common rules. It demands patience, attention, and the willingness to follow evidence rather than biases. This experience is rare in today’s civic landscape.
While jury service is inconvenient and financially disruptive, making it more accessible is important. Yet, avoiding it undermines its significance. Our Founders entrusted justice to ordinary citizens, recognizing self-government as a practiced duty. Americans readily discuss rights but are often uneasy with fulfilling duties. Constitutional governance relies on both.
Public discourse often feels remote and performative, framed by social media explosions mistaken for democratic engagement. The jury room counters this; it’s serious and requires negotiation. It compels people to resolve disagreements honestly. In a polarized nation, such experiences are invaluable.
Celebrating anniversaries is easy, but citizenship demands effort. A republic thrives not merely on patriotic rhetoric, but through individuals embracing liberty’s requirements. Jury duty embodies this, urging people to abandon avoidance in favor of embracing democratic responsibility. In our trials, we find that jurors often get it right.
Randy Jordan and Chris Jordan are trial lawyers at HunterMaclean in Savannah, Georgia. They served as co-lead counsel in Poppell v. McKesson, securing the first opioid verdict in the U.S. by private citizens, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Copyright © 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material cannot be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.