‘Based on evidence’: Gwyneth Paltrow juror says Goop mogul didn’t win because she’s a celebrity

‘I think it’s important the public doesn’t just think this was a win because Gwyneth is a celebrity’

A juror in the Gwyneth Paltrow ski crash trial has said that the jury didn’t side with the Goop mogul because she’s famous but that the decision was based on the “evidence”.

Samantha Imrie served as juror 11 during the trial, telling Good Morning America that the testimony of snow science expert Dr Irving Scher swayed the jury.

He argued that Ms Paltrow’s story of what happened on the slopes of the Deer Valley Resort in 2016 is “consistent with the laws of physics” while the version of events put forward by retired eye doctor Terry Sanderson, 76, didn’t add up.

The court ruled that Mr Sanderson would pay Ms Paltrow $1 following the trial prompted by a 2019 lawsuit. Mr Sanderson had initially sought more than $3m in damages, which had been downgraded to $300,000 by Judge Kent Holmberg. Ms Paltrow also asked that her legal fees be covered.

“He is a snow sports expert, in many different ways. I think the fact that Dr Scher specifically studied snow science, it had a stronger opinion,” Ms Imrie, 31, told ABC.

“The whole thing was a little shocking to me. We did have a unanimous decision. I think it’s important the public doesn’t just think this was a win because Gwyneth is a celebrity,” she added.

“It’s based on the evidence and the law. I do work in medicine and have to look at everyone the same. So I think that should apply in the courtroom, as well,” she said.

Mr Sanderson argued that the 2016 crash, which he says was caused by Ms Paltrow, had left him with severe injuries, but photos were shown during the trial of him travelling all over the world.

“I think I wrote down, ‘Wow, I need to make more money so I can travel this way,’” Ms Imrie told GMA.

“I wouldn’t have thought he was capable of those things based on the picture that had been painted,” she added.

“He was telling his truth, and I think unfortunately some of that has been distorted due to some other factors,” she said. “But I do think that he did not intend to tell a truth that wasn’t his truth.”

“In the back of my mind, yes, this woman is an actress, and I took that into account, but I didn’t feel that she had a reason to lie under oath,” the juror told the programme. “She’s always in the spotlight, so she always has to be honest.”