A few years ago in Glynn County, Georgia, we found ourselves in one of the most intense courtroom battles of our careers. We spent over five weeks immersed in a case under Georgia’s Drug Dealer Liability Act. The plaintiffs were twenty-one individuals, predominately children of opioid addicts, seeking accountability from our client. The emotional toll was heavy. Families torn apart by neglect and overdose, living lives marked by significant loss. This case was unprecedented and drew national attention, as the outcome could set a precedent.
A jury of twelve Georgians deliberated for almost two days before delivering a verdict of non-liability for our client on all counts. The ruling was later unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia. This narrative is shared not to rehash the argument, but to highlight the challenge tasked to the jury. They had to navigate the heartrending stories of affected families while strictly adhering to legal principles. They resisted the urge to yield to the emotionally charged nature of the issue, instead asking if the evidence justified the claim. Their decision was validated not by our preferences, but by the highest court in Georgia.
In our combined experience of over one hundred jury trials, we have never seen a jury dismiss their responsibility. Jurors, often away from their regular lives, approach each case with seriousness, something increasingly rare in America today. This dedication is crucial. A Gallup report in 2024 showed public trust in the judicial system fell to a historic low of 35%. This distrust spans various branches, including Congress and the presidency.
However, many who distrust these institutions frequently evade serving on juries, one of the few forums where ordinary citizens play a direct role. As America marks its 250th anniversary, this contradiction is significant. Serving on a jury is a rare democratic duty involving real decision-making by regular citizens, not officials, experts, or media influencers. It’s one of the few environments expecting citizens to engage meaningfully, weigh diverse perspectives, and decide points that can affect lives.
Most aspects of American life allow choice in community and opinion. Jury service contrasts this by placing individuals from diverse backgrounds together, requiring adherence to agreed-upon rules. It demands patience, careful listening, and judgment based on evidence, not personal biases. Few civic duties ask as much of us. While jury duty can disrupt daily life, courts should strive to ease this burden, yet avoidance is not the solution.
The founders of the nation included citizens in justice processes knowing self-governance depends on active practice. Americans discuss rights frequently yet falter when it comes to civic responsibilities. The fabric of constitutional governance relies on both. Despite feeling disconnected in curated public interactions, jury duty remains unscripted and earnest. Here, disagreements must be reconciled honestly. In our polarized nation, these duties are invaluable.
Commemorative events come and go, but genuine citizenship involves more. A republic thrives when the populace embraces the rigor liberty demands. Jury duty exemplifies these enduring responsibilities and shouldn’t be dismissed. It is one of the last vestiges of authentic democratic involvement where citizens are trusted to deliver just outcomes, and they often do.
Randy Jordan and Chris Jordan are trial lawyers at HunterMaclean in Savannah, Georgia. They were co-lead counsel on Poppell v. McKesson, securing a victory in the first opioid verdict brought by private citizens. The decision was unanimously confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.