A few years back, a case in Glynn County, Georgia, captivated attention. Over five weeks, 21 plaintiffs, mostly children of opioid addicts, pursued a case under Georgia’s Drug Dealer Liability Act. The human narratives presented in court were severe. Neglectful parents, some of whom had succumbed to overdoses, were a focal point. The lives affected were visibly afflicted.
This was the inaugural case of its kind in the United States, drawing widespread curiosity about the jury’s probable decision. A dozen individuals from coastal Georgia deliberated for almost two days. Ultimately, they declared our client not liable on all charges. The Georgia Supreme Court later supported this decision unanimously.
“We’re not recounting this to argue over the case but to highlight what the jury faced.”
The jury had the difficult task of sharing space with heartbroken families for weeks while adhering to the legal framework. They had to contend with emotionally charged narratives and ask themselves, “Does the evidence truly substantiate this claim?” They adhered to the law, not anyone’s version but that of the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Having undertaken over a hundred jury trials between us, we’ve never encountered a jury that disregarded its responsibility. Regular people, taken away from personal and professional obligations to partake in a trial, routinely step up to the challenge. Juries aren’t flawless. However, they approach the task with a seriousness that is somewhat absent in general public life today. This sincerity is crucial now more than ever.
Gallup’s 2024 report highlighted that public confidence in the judiciary had descended to an unprecedented low of 35%. This was part of a broader collapse affecting other pillars like Congress and the presidency. Often, individuals skeptical of institutions are the same ones seeking reasons to avoid serving in one of the few institutions they genuinely own.
This contradiction requires reflection as America marks its 250th year. Jury service stands out as an exceptional democratic responsibility, granting ordinary citizens direct authority — not officials, academics, or commentators. It is one of the rare arenas where citizens must engage in a significant, collective endeavor: examining opposing claims, focusing on facts rather than slogans, deliberating with unfamiliar individuals, and reaching a consequential decision for another’s life.
Citizens are required to not merely critique from the sidelines but to actively engage, participate, and bear the burden of judgment. This is real citizenship, beyond mere symbolic acts.
Today, people often choose their groups, whether in their news, communities, or politics. Differences are avoided rather than embraced. In contrast, the jury system gathers citizens with strangers from various backgrounds under a unified code, prioritizing evidence over personal biases.
While jury service can be inconvenient and disrupt work life, and though improvements in accessibility should continue, its demands form part of its significance. Our nation’s founders entrusted ordinary people with a crucial role in justice administration, understanding that self-governance is active, not merely hereditary.
Although Americans readily discuss rights, there’s hesitancy around duties and their execution. Our constitutional framework relies on both.
Much of today’s public life appears remote and performative, encouraging arguments across platforms designed for outrage. But the jury room offers a stark contrast, maintaining seriousness and unscripted challenges, facilitating honest resolutions amidst disagreement. In a polarized nation, this process may be one of the most worthwhile civic experiences retained.
Anniversaries are simple and infrequent. Citizenship is arduous. A republic requires more than patriotic language to thrive. It necessitates everyday individuals upholding the disciplines tied to liberty, one of which includes jury duty. Avoiding it undermines democratic responsibility. It remains a notable place where average Americans are relied upon to make accurate decisions. In our experience, they generally succeed.
Randy Jordan and Chris Jordan are trial lawyers at HunterMaclean in Savannah, Georgia, who served as co-lead counsel in Poppell v. McKesson, resulting in the nation’s first opioid verdict by private citizens, upheld unanimously by the Georgia Supreme Court.