A few years ago, a lengthy trial unfolded in a courtroom in Glynn County, Georgia. Twenty-one plaintiffs, primarily children of opioid addicts, took legal action against a client under Georgia’s Drug Dealer Liability Act. The case resonated deeply with emotions, presenting stories of neglect, overdose, and lives profoundly affected. This case marked a national first, and all eyes watched the jury’s decision.
After two days of deliberation by twelve citizens from coastal Georgia, the verdict was clear: our client was not liable on any count. This decision was later unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The story serves not to revisit the trial but to highlight the jury’s duty. They faced grieving families, yet adhered to the law, challenging an emotionally charged narrative. Their focus was evidence over emotion, leading to a verdict that aligned with legal correctness.
In our careers, having tried over a hundred jury cases, we’ve never encountered a jury that shirked responsibility. Juries, composed of regular people diverted from their routines, consistently address their responsibilities with seriousness. This attitude contrasts much of American public life.
Current reports from Gallup show only 35 percent confidence in the judicial system, reflecting a broader erosion of faith in institutions like Congress and the presidency. Nevertheless, those expressing distrust often seek to evade jury service, an institution fundamentally rooted in citizen participation.
Jury service remains one of the few democratic duties involving direct citizen engagement. It’s not elected officials, academics, or influencers making decisions, but ordinary citizens. The process demands listening, evidence evaluation, and collaborative decision-making, taking them beyond critique to active participation.
In America, people often self-select their environments and views, avoiding discord. The jury system disrupts this, placing individuals of diverse backgrounds together under a unified judicial process. It demands patience, objective evidence assessment, and overcoming biases.
Despite being disruptive and financially challenging, especially for some workers, jury duty holds significant value. The founders created this citizen role in justice to exemplify self-governance through practice, rather than inheritance. While rights are commonly discussed in America, duties require equal attention and action.
Much of today’s public life feels distant and performative. Social media amplifies division and gives an illusion of democratic participation. Yet the jury room stands apart: it’s serious, genuine, and compels individuals to engage earnestly with dissent. Given current polarization, this civic experience holds immense value.
Anniversaries offer ease, but consistent citizenship demands effort. A republic thrives on more than rhetoric; it requires daily discipline in liberty. Jury duty symbolizes a critical, genuine democratic responsibility. It’s time to stop avoiding it and recognize its importance as one of the last trusts in ordinary Americans, who often rise to the occasion.
Randy Jordan and Chris Jordan practice trial law at HunterMaclean in Savannah, Georgia. As co-lead counsels in Poppell v. McKesson, they achieved the country’s first opioid verdict in favor of private citizens, later affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved.