Resources

The User of the Product

Jurors rigorously scrutinize a plaintiff’s credibility and choices. While some may question why a plaintiff used kratom, it is often sought as an alternative treatment. However, jurors tend to be skeptical of self-medication with an FDA-unapproved product.

Key questions jurors consider:

• Did the plaintiff pursue safer alternatives (e.g., medical care, physical therapy) before turning to kratom?
• Was the plaintiff’s age or education level a factor in their ability to assess risks?
• Was kratom used to replace another addiction?
• Did the plaintiff have preexisting health conditions?

Understanding how jurors judge alternative medicine use is critical for developing case strategy.

The Suppliers and Manufacturers

Jurors demand transparency in product safety, particularly in the kratom industry where supply chains are often obscured. The kratom industry has expanded significantly, using multiple layers of LLCs and mislabeling shipments to pass customs.

Key concerns for jurors:

• Who is the supplier and manufacturer? Jurors dislike companies that hide their identities through shell corporations.
• How is the product tested for safety? The FDA has issued alerts allowing inspectors to confiscate kratom products, yet many suppliers sidestep regulations by mislabeling shipments.

Jurors will closely examine whether manufacturers tested products for bacteria, heavy metals, purity, and alkaloid content before selling them in the U.S.

Warnings and Labels

Kratom is sold in various forms—energy shots, pills, and tea—at gas stations, vape shops, and online. However, labeling is often unclear, leading users to seek guidance from alternative sources like online forums and books.

Jurors’ attitudes toward warning labels vary:

• Some take a literal approach, scrutinizing labels word for word.
• Others rely on common sense or general knowledge.

Regardless of interpretation, product labeling—especially misleading claims—will be a key issue in litigation.

Strategic Takeaways for Kratom Litigation

• Anticipate juror biases: If a plaintiff lacks credibility, focus on the manufacturer’s failures in ensuring product safety.
• The jury will hold someone accountable: Defendants using shell corporations to evade liability should be prepared to justify their business practices.
• Warning and Labels: Voir dire strategies should identify jurors with favorable views on warning labels.

By applying pharmaceutical liability frameworks to kratom cases, attorneys can proactively shape juror expectations and minimize surprises during trial.

Download PDF

Understanding Juror Reactions in Kratom Lawsuits

This article is the first in a three-part series and examines the first kratom case to result in a jury verdict: Sybil Coyne v. Wendianne Rook and Jeff Rook; Society Botanicals, LLC, et al.

The Case Overview

Kratom, a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia, has leaves that are crushed and consumed for their psychoactive effects. Its primary alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bind to opioid receptors in the brain, producing effects similar to opioids: analgesia, euphoria, and sedation.

In July 2023, a jury awarded $2.5 million to the plaintiff in the Coyne case. The fact pattern revealed the story of Patrick Coyne, a boat mechanic and father of three, who was found dead at home in his recliner after using kratom multiple times daily to manage chronic back pain. The judge and jury concluded that inadequate warnings, labeling, and instructions directly caused his death and that the defendant's actions were extreme enough to have violated consumer protection laws.

The Jury’s Message: Accountability Over Sympathy

Large verdicts are not driven by sympathy; they are statements of accountability. Sybil Coyne received $1.1 million in economic damages and $1.4 million in non-economic damages—a staggering sum in Cowlitz County, where the median income is $36,000. The jury's message was clear: corporate negligence with life-or-death consequences will not be tolerated. The special verdict form confirmed the defendant’s failure to ensure product safety, directly linking these oversights to Patrick's death.

The Role of Deceptive Marketing

What fueled this outcome? The complaint revealed that defendant Wendi Rook promoted kratom through a free eBook titled "KRATOM: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS AND BENEFITS OF THIS AMAZING PLANT," which downplayed risks. For example, she made statements such as:

"If the quantity consumed is too much for the body to handle, the kratom will let you know by causing nausea or vomiting. You may have heard some highly biased stories in the media of how kratom caused someone’s untimely death. However, what the media doesn’t reveal in these stories is the list of other potentially lethal substances found in the dead person’s blood. Keep in mind that there is no scientifically confirmed recorded fact of kratom ever causing a single death, so no need to be nervous about trying it."

The court reinforced this narrative. In a pretrial summary judgment, the judge ruled the product’s warnings and instructions inadequate. Jurors later found Society Botanicals guilty of deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act—a predictable outcome given the eBook’s misleading claims.

Juror Psychology: Why Betrayal Matters

Jurors do not like deceit. Written materials like Rook’s eBook become focal points in deliberations, offering tangible proof of dishonesty. While testimony and scientific evidence can overwhelm jurors, written lies are indelible. They erode defendant credibility and shape verdicts.

Betrayal also resonates deeply. Here, the defendant’s denial of kratom’s risks betrayed the community’s trust. Jurors—many familiar with betrayal in their own lives—saw parallels in the company’s disregard for safety. The family, customers, and community were betrayed.

Not all kratom cases will involve betrayal, but anticipating how jurors interpret and evaluate the facts in your case prior to trial is critical to mitigating damages or recovering damages for your client.

This is the first article in a three-part series. Stay tuned for the next installment, which will examine the three pillars of fault in kratom litigation.

Download PDF

In this installment of the series on managing Dismissive and Bully attorneys, we describe additional actions that do not work or that contribute to dysfunctional relationships with opposing attorneys. It is drawn from interviews with more than 40 attorneys.

Download PDF

This is the fourth part of the series, and here we discuss actions based on interviews with 40 attorneys that have proven not to work in dealing with dismissive or bully opposing counsel and, in fact, contribute to fueling discord and frustration.

Download PDF

In this third part of the series, we describe additional techniques and tools, based on interviews with forty attorneys, which have proven effective in managing dismissive and bully opposing counsel.

Download PDF

In the first part of this series, we helped identified common traits associated with difficult opposing counsel. In this part we introduce effective tools to deal with such counsel, based on interviews with forty attorneys.

Download PDF

It is the personality component that can lead to the same dysfunctional relationship between the attorneys that the parties experience with each other. This is the first in a series entitled Managing Dismissive and Bully Attorneys. The series explores these sometimes explosive relationships and provides effective tools for attorneys to manage the most difficult and possibly high conflict personality opposing attorney.

Download PDF

Mock trials are a valuable tool for attorneys to test their case strategies and gain insights into how a jury might react to their arguments. By simulating a real trial, attorneys can identify strengths and weaknesses in their case, refine their arguments, and develop more effective trial strategies.

Download PDF

It can certainly be difficult to assess how someone thinks and how they will relate to other jurors, particularly in the typically frenetic voir dire settings. However, clinical psychology can provide attorneys helpful guidance in making quick, insightful voir dire juror assessments even where no factual bias is uncovered.

Read Article