Gwyneth Paltrow’s Style During Ski Crash Trial
Gwyneth Paltrow, the 50-year-old actress and owner of the company Goop, recently made headlines for the eight-day trial in regards to a 2016 ski crash that occurred in Park City, Utah. The outcome of the trial resulted in a legal victory for Paltrow as the eight-person jury found her not liable for the collision involving Terry Sanderson at the Deer Valley Resort.
Paltrow’s demeanor, statements, and attire were under scrutiny during the trial, with legal analysts commenting that they could influence perceptions. Cynthia Augello, a partner at Warren Law Group, noted that clothing can unconsciously convey significant information about a litigant. Augello said that Paltrow’s choice of clothing was appropriate as it aligned with the expectations of the local community, while maintaining an effortless and understated appearance.
Paltrow has a subtle yet sophisticated sense of style, pairing designer labels with her own Goop brand threads. Her wardrobe was expensive, with some items selling out within minutes online when featured in court. Despite the underlying cost, each outfit had a similar neutral palette, and her choice of clothing aligned with the expectations of the local community.
On the first day of the trial, Paltrow wore a $1,200 pair of brown leather Celine boots, a green trench coat, and cream-colored sweater from The Row, and aviator Ray-Ban sunglasses. On the second day, she wore an ivory-colored cardigan from G. Label by Goop with a $25,000 gold Foundrae clip chain heart necklace, and she carried a vintage brown leather Celine purse. She wore a gray Brunello Cucinelli suit on the third day, which she had previously worn while shopping with her daughter, Apple.
Her wardrobe choices were carefully thought out as clothing can potentially influence the jury’s perception of the defendant. Paltrow’s ability to appear approachable and relatable was imperative as it prevented her from giving the impression that she thought of herself as more important than the jury.
Attorney Andres Munoz, partner with Romano Law, noted that Paltrow’s appearance during the trial is an unspoken tool of persuasion that absolutely falls within the category of appealing to the jury by appearing more likable and relatable while staying genuine. Munoz also stated that juries are unpredictable, and sometimes, strategies that may appear disingenuous can backfire.
Paltrow’s clothing did not affect the trial’s verdict. Criminal defense attorney Silva Megerditchian commented that jurors see everything and that as long as the clothing is appropriate, it does not affect the verdict’s outcome. The credibility and believability of the witness are paramount, regardless of what they are wearing or how expensive their jewelry is.
In conclusion, while Paltrow’s wardrobe choices were expensive and carefully thought out, her subtle yet sophisticated sense of style aligned with the expectations of the local community. Appearing approachable and relatable while staying genuine was imperative in preventing her from appearing as more important than the jury. In the end, the credibility of the witness was paramount, regardless of the clothing worn in court.
