Natalie Gordon, Ph.D., is a Consultant at DOAR with extensive experience in navigating complex civil and white-collar criminal litigation. She is adept at mitigating the effects of pre-trial publicity and media attention on cases in selecting an impartial jury. Natalie has contributed to high-profile matters such as In Re: National Prescription Opioid Litigation, In Re Petrobras, U.S. v. Boustani, U.S. v. Senator Robert Menendez, U.S. v. Tom Barrack, U.S. v. Jayson Penn et al. (on behalf of Bill Lovette), U.S. v. David Sidoo et al. (on behalf of John Wilson), U.S. v. Jie “Jack” Zhao, U.S. v. Gatto, SEC v. AT&T, Sean Rad et al. v. IAC InterActiveCorp et al., Monster Energy v. Bang, and Ambac v. Countrywide.
With a Ph.D. in psychology and law, featuring a dual specialization in basic and applied social psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Natalie combines deep theoretical knowledge with practical application. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and philosophy from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a Master’s degree in experimental psychology from the University of Colorado.
Natalie’s dissertation, funded by the National Science Foundation, investigated jurors’ perceptions of their fairness and impartiality in the context of pretrial publicity during rehabilitative voir dire. This impactful research earned her CUNY’s Presidential Prize for Public Communication. Additionally, she has explored topics such as attributions of liability in cases involving proximal and distal causes, the collaborative recall of evidence during jury deliberations, and the influence of genetic and environmental factors on jurors’ sentencing decisions in capital cases.
An accomplished author, Natalie has published theoretical papers on the utility of experts testifying in the “hot tub,” the legal concept of “actus reus,” and the application of small group research to inform settlement decisions. Her work has appeared in academic and legal journals such as Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Topics in Cognitive Science, the Georgia State Law Review, the Wyoming Law Review, the New York Law Journal, and Law360.
In addition to her consultancy work, Natalie serves as an adjunct professor at John Jay College, where she teaches courses in psychology and law, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and research methods, sharing her expertise and passion for the intersection of psychology and the legal system.
