In the high-stakes world of celebrity trials, fashion is more than just a statement; it is a weapon, a shield, and a means of communication. The way a celebrity dresses for court can shape public perception, influence jurors, and even sway the outcome of a case. This phenomenon was on full display earlier this month when Kim Kardashian arrived at the courthouse in central Paris, a vision of composure and opulence, adorned in an estimated $8 million worth of jewelry. It was a bold choice, especially considering the context: Kardashian was there to testify in her own robbery trial, recounting the traumatic events of a 2016 heist in which she was held at gunpoint and millions of dollars' worth of cash and jewelry were stolen.

Kardashian's appearance was a masterclass in sartorial defiance. She arrived alongside her mother, Kris Jenner, to face the so-called "grandpa robbers"—a group of suspects in their 60s and 70s, some of whom were unable to stand trial due to health issues. The charges against them were severe: armed robbery, kidnapping, and conspiracy. Yet, Kardashian's choice of attire seemed to transcend the gravity of the situation. She wore Alaïa sunglasses, a vintage John Galliano black skirt-suit with a plunging neckline and a sizeable side slit, and around her neck, a tear-drop-shaped necklace from Samer Halimeh featuring over 52 carats of diamonds. The ensemble was completed with diamond earrings, a 4.55 carat Repossi diamond over-the-ear cuff, and a white gold and diamond pavé version by Briony Raymond.

This dazzling display of wealth and fashion was not without its critics. On social media, some viewed Kardashian's jewelry as a gauche reminder of her seemingly limitless resources. However, for fashion law experts like Douglas Hand, a professor at NYU and author of "The Laws of Style," it was a symbol of defiance and resilience. "Her choice of jewelry really underscored the fact that she wants to announce that she's reclaiming her power after this traumatic event," Hand explained. "If I were advising her from both a business perspective and a legal perspective, I think you'd want to signal that you are a survivor."

The power of a carefully considered courtroom outfit should never be underestimated. Fashion can be a powerful tool in shaping public opinion and influencing the outcome of legal proceedings. In 2023, Gwyneth Paltrow faced a personal injury claim over a skiing accident. Her choice of understated yet luxurious looks, including a loden coat from The Row, pants by Proenza Schouler, and boots by Celine, swayed public opinion in her favor. Fans took to social media to rate her outfits and even attempted to recreate them at home. What could have been a damaging episode for Paltrow's brand instead became a masterclass in the soft power of fashion. Ultimately, the jury unanimously sided with Paltrow, finding her not liable.

Similarly, when author E. Jean Carroll testified against former US President Donald Trump in 2023, accusing him of sexual assault, her choice of decorous, earth-toned tailored dresses and smart jackets presented her as the antithesis of the "whack job" label Trump had tried to pin on her. Despite Trump's denial and public insults, Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages. A year later, she received an additional $83.3 million for defamation.

Celebrities like Megan Thee Stallion and Cardi B have also enlisted their regular red carpet stylists to create courtroom looks that feel authentic to their personas. Sharp tailored suits, worn with razor-sharp bobs, have become a signature for these artists. According to Hand, the consideration that goes into courtroom clothes is not merely an exercise in vanity. "These outfits are pretty choreographed by any well-advised litigant," he said. "For high-profile litigants, courtroom dress is usually an attempt to dispel any appearance of wrongdoing, whether you're charged with a crime or embroiled in some dispute or a nasty divorce."

The right ensemble can also help convey a degree of credibility. Music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs, currently on trial for federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, has opted for soft sweaters, glasses, and undyed grey hair. This curated image contrasts sharply with the allegations against him, potentially influencing public perception. "Your apparel choices speak before you do," Hand added. "That's incredibly important, particularly in a high-stakes situation like a court of law."

For almost as long as celebrities have been breaking the law, they have been dressing for the occasion. In 2002, Winona Ryder faced a shoplifting trial after being accused of stealing over $5,500 worth of designer goods from Saks Fifth Avenue. Her choice of a Marc Jacobs trompe l'oeil knit dress has since become a fashion legend. Ryder's sartorial strategy was clear: elegant, prim, and demure, with a touch of youthful earnestness. However, despite her fashionable facade, she was found guilty and sentenced to community service, a fine, and probation.

When rapper Lil' Kim faced trial for perjury in 2004, she coordinated her tailored pinstripe suit vest and slacks with those worn by her attorney, Mel Sachs. Several of her courtroom looks were reportedly gifted by Marc Jacobs, who provided her with modest sandy-colored suits and bouclé twin-sets. However, too much emphasis on fashion can backfire. In 2004, Martha Stewart's choice to wear a mink stole and a chestnut-colored Hermès Birkin bag during her insider trading trial sparked controversy. The New York Times criticized her for reinforcing an image of privilege rather than promoting an approachable, relatable persona.

Michael Jackson's courtroom attire during his 2005 child molestation trial was another example of fashion choices that could have been perceived as inappropriate. He arrived in flamboyant brocaded vests and dazzling waistcoat jewelry, much like his stage outfits. Hand suggests that celebrities should aim for a "sober" and "conservative" look to emphasize trustworthiness. Anything else risks sending a message of flagrance, which can quickly sour jurors.

Earlier this year, rapper A$AP Rocky appeared in a Los Angeles court facing charges of felony assault, one with a firearm. His courtroom look—a gabardine trench coat, wool chiné pants, and a striped satin shirt worn with sunglasses—was a sophisticated, stylish take on courtroom dressing. It resembled the type of campaign he might star in for Italian luxury label Bottega Veneta. However, a press release distributed to journalists confirmed that Rocky had been dressed head-to-toe in Saint Laurent. This move surprised a senior fashion public relations executive in London, who advised against promoting brands worn during sensitive events. "It's not appropriate to be shouting about them wearing your brand in those contexts," they said. "It's tacky."

Saint Laurent is not the only brand hoping to capitalize on the free press that comes with highly publicized lawsuits. In 2024, Anna Delvey, the "fake heiress" convicted of grand larceny and other financial crimes, used an immigration court appearance to promote emerging fashion label Shao New York by wearing a custom outfit by the brand.

In Kardashian's case, she was not appearing as a person convicted of a crime but as a veritable victim. "The appearance of wrongdoing was not anything that she needed to address," said Hand. Instead of sending a message to the judge and jury, as is usually the goal of a celebrity courtroom outfit, Kardashian's diamonds spoke directly to the public. What they were really intended to say, however, isn't crystal clear.

Fashion in the courtroom is a complex interplay of strategy, perception, and public relations. It can be a powerful tool for celebrities to shape their narratives, assert their identities, and influence public opinion. Whether it is a symbol of defiance, a means of reclaiming power, or a way to project credibility, the right outfit can make all the difference. In the world of celebrity trials, fashion is not just about looking good; it is about making a statement that can resonate far beyond the courtroom.