Gwyneth Paltrow made headlines recently as she dressed to impress in court during an eight-day trial regarding an alleged ski crash collision back in 2016. The trial took place in Park City, Utah, and Paltrow was accused of leaving Terry Sanderson with a permanent traumatic brain injury after colliding with him from behind while skiing. In the end, a jury found her not liable for the accident, and she countersued and was awarded $1 in damages, in addition to attorney fees.
Throughout the trial, Paltrow opted for an understated presence in the courtroom, showcasing her elegant yet subtle sense of style. The 50-year-old actress paired major designer labels with her own G. Label by Goop brand threads, some of which sold out in minutes online. Cynthia Augello, partner at Warren Law Group, shared that “every aspect of her behavior, attire, and statements will be scrutinized,” indicating that Paltrow’s overall demeanor and unique aura leaves an indelible impression on both the judge and jury.
According to Augello, “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, and while her visage should not influence the outcome of the case, it undoubtedly plays a role in shaping perceptions.”
Due to the importance of dressing appropriately in court, Paltrow made a conscious effort to choose her attire. By opting for clothing that aligns with the expectations of the local community while maintaining an effortless appearance, she helps shape perceptions positively. Her choice of clothing and style may have been to play to the local crowd and underscore that she is the “obviously famous defendant” that is being subjected to a money grab by the plaintiff.
However, Paltrow’s appearance during the trial is an unspoken tool of persuasion that falls within the category of implicit credibility. Although the jury may see disingenuous behavior, juries are unpredictable, which may lead to a backfire on her “look” if they find it so.
Attorney Andres Munoz, partner with Romano Law, noted that “a party’s main goal at any trial is to win over the jury with a more persuasive, credible story. That can be done explicitly with testimony and evidence, and implicitly with unspoken actions to be more likable and appear credible. Paltrow’s appearance during this trial is an unspoken tool of persuasion that absolutely falls within that latter category.”
Despite the high-end cost of Gwyneth’s wardrobe, which is widely accepted, each of her looks had a similar neutral palette. This made for an understated presence in court that allowed her to appeal to the jury by appearing more likable and relatable, while staying genuine.
In addition to her attire, Paltrow made sure to be conscious of her behavior and statements, as every aspect was under scrutiny. While dressing down could create an impression of attempting to deceive the jury, dressing for success was the way to go. Paltrow appeared approachable and relatable, making sure they did not get the impression that she thinks of herself as more important than the jury.
In conclusion, Paltrow’s appearance during her eight-day trial was a smart and strategic move to appeal to the jury in an implicit and unspoken way. The balance achieved between appealing to the jury by appearing more likable and relatable, while staying genuine, was vital in the outcome of the case. Paltrow was able to show off her subtle, yet sophisticated sense of style, which further helped shape positive perceptions of her. Although her clothing’s cost may have been high-end, her wardrobe choice aligned with the expectations of the local community, while maintaining an effortless appearance.
