Gwyneth Paltrow’s Courtroom Style Impresses Jury in Ski Crash Trial
Gwyneth Paltrow, the 50-year-old Oscar-winner, recently showed off her subtle, yet sophisticated sense of style as she simultaneously battled a lawsuit stemming from an alleged collision in 2016 during a skiing trip in Park City, Utah.
Cynthia Augello, partner at Warren Law Group, told Fox News Digital that “every aspect of her behavior, attire, and statements will be scrutinized,” so it comes as no surprise that Paltrow went for an understated presence to impress the jury.
Paltrow’s overall demeanor and unique aura, says Augello, leave an indelible impression on both the judge and the jury. While her visage should not influence the outcome of the case, it undoubtedly plays a role in shaping perceptions.
A litigant’s choice of clothing in court can unconsciously convey significant information about them, whether it is accurate or not. “Ms. Paltrow’s overall demeanor and unique aura leave an indelible impression on both the judge and the jury,” Augello said.
Despite the likelihood of her clothing being costly, every one of Paltrow’s looks had a similar neutral palette, with several pieces from her own G. Label by Goop brand that sold out online within minutes after being featured in the courtroom.
Costly is an understatement for a few of Gwyneth’s getups. On the first day of trial, Paltrow wore a $1,200 pair of brown leather Celine boots, a green trench coat, and a cream-colored sweater from The Row, along with Ray-Ban sunglasses. On the second day of proceedings, she walked into the courtroom wearing an ivory-colored cardigan from G. Label by Goop, with a $25,000 gold Foundrae clip chain heart necklace. She also hauled a vintage brown leather Celine purse.
According to Paltrow’s attorneys, she made a conscious effort to choose her attire. Her choice of clothing and accessories may be to play to the local crowd or to underscore that she’s the ‘obviously famous defendant’ being subjected to a claim by the plaintiff.
Despite her expensive wardrobe, Paltrow’s approachable and relatable appearance didn’t give the impression she held herself above the jury. Attorney Andres Munoz, partner with Romano Law, told Fox News Digital that Paltrow “made a conscious effort to choose her attire.”
A party’s main goal at any trial is to win over the jury with a more persuasive, credible story. Paltrow’s appearance during this trial is an unspoken tool of persuasion that absolutely falls within that latter category. Juries are unpredictable, especially with strategies that may appear disingenuous.
While jurors “see everything,” as long as the clothing remains appropriate, it doesn’t necessarily affect the verdict. When representing a celebrity, there is a difference between likability and credibility. As we saw in the Johnny Depp trial, Mr. Depp came off, extremely likable and relatable, but most legal analysts said his testimony was not credible.
Sanderson initially claimed that Paltrow left him with a “permanent traumatic brain injury” after she crashed into him from behind while skiing in 2016 at the Deer Valley Resort in Park City. He initially sued the actress, the exclusive resort, and the ski instructor who was providing lessons to Paltrow’s son at the time of the accident. A judge dismissed the claim, and Deer Valley Resort and the instructor were removed from the lawsuit.
Sanderson then sued Paltrow for $300,000. She countersued for $1 and attorney fees. Paltrow recently earned a legal victory when an eight-person jury found she was not liable for the ski crash collision.
In conclusion, Paltrow’s attire during the trial was a conscious effort that she deliberately made to appear approachable and relatable to the jury. While jurors are unpredictable, Paltrow’s style choice acted as an unspoken tool of persuasion that fell in the latter persuasion category. Despite her expensive attire, as long as it remained appropriate, it didn’t affect the outcome of the verdict.
