Gwyneth Paltrow’s Courtroom Style for Ski Crash Trial Impresses Jury
Gwyneth Paltrow is well-known for her impeccable style, and she did not disappoint during her eight-day ski crash trial in Park City, Utah, in 2016. The actress, who was accused of causing a collision with Terry Sanderson, dressed in designer labels and her own G. Label by Goop brand. Her wardrobe quickly sold out online upon being featured in court.
According to Cynthia Augello, partner at Warren Law Group, Paltrow’s behavior, attire, and statements were scrutinized during the trial. Augello noted that a litigant’s choice of clothing in court can unconsciously convey significant information about them, which could influence perceptions. Paltrow went for an understated presence, which aligned with the expectations of the local community and impressed the jury.
Paltrow’s wardrobe was expensive and had a similar neutral palette throughout the trial. On the first day, she wore a $1,200 pair of Celine boots, a green trench coat, cream-colored sweater, and aviator sunglasses from The Row. On the second day, 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.
Despite her clothing being costly, Paltrow’s attire did not create an impression of attempting to deceive the jury. By appearing approachable and relatable, she didn’t give the impression that she thought of herself as more important than the jury.
Throughout the trial, Paltrow wore a gray Brunello Cucinelli suit, a long navy Prada skirt, a black, long-sleeved polo with Chelsea boots, and Proenza Schouler White Label leather culottes. She also paired each look with her own G. Label by Goop brand clothing, including a pink blouse and a black cardigan with a matching skirt.
Attorney Andres Munoz, partner with Romano Law, noted that Paltrow made a conscious effort to choose her attire, which aimed to play to the local crowd or underscore that she was the obviously famous defendant being subjected to a money grab by the plaintiff. Munoz also said that Paltrow’s appearance was an unspoken tool of persuasion that appealed to the jury by making her more likable and appear credible.
Criminal defense attorney Silva Megerditchian said that, during trials, jurors see everything, but as long as the clothing is appropriate, it does not affect the verdict. Megerditchian added that, when representing a celebrity, there is a difference between likability and credibility. Most legal analysts agreed that Paltrow’s testimony was credible, and in a trial, nothing was more important than the credibility and believability of the witness, regardless of what they are wearing or how expensive their jewelry is.
Paltrow earned a legal victory when the eight-person jury found that she was not liable for the ski crash collision involving Sanderson at the Deer Valley Resort. The actress countersued and was awarded $1 in damages and attorney fees. Overall, Paltrow’s subtle yet sophisticated sense of style impressed the jury and left an indelible impression on both the judge and the jury.
In conclusion, Paltrow’s style during the trial demonstrated her understanding of the importance of creating the right impression in court. Her attire appeared approachable and relatable, making her more likable and credible in the eyes of the jury. Despite the underlying cost, her overall wardrobe was expensive, neutral, and appropriate for the trial, which earned her the win in the end.
