Johnny Depp And his lawyers surprised many legal experts by winning a US defamation lawsuit against the ex-wife Amber Heard Earlier in the UK after losing a similar defamation case.
After 23 days of testimony and less than three days of deliberation, a jury ruled in favor of all three of Depp’s claims against Heard, finding that he had falsely committed domestic abuse with intent to damage his reputation. and intentionally accused.
In 2020, Depp lost a defamation case in the UK after the actor sued The Sun, a British tabloid, for calling her a ‘wife beater’.
In that case, a judge concluded that the domestic abuse that Heard alleged had actually occurred.
That’s why Depp’s victory in the American legal system, which sets a high bar for proving the disrespect of a public figure, was a surprise to some legal analysts.
Winning a defamation suit is traditionally easier in the UK because that legal system requires the defendant to prove the veracity of their alleged defamatory statements, whereas in the US, it has to prove to the plaintiff that the alleged defamatory statements were false.
Johnny Depp emerged victorious in his US defamation suit against his ex-wife Amber Heard, having previously lost his case in the UK, despite the belief that it is easier to win a defamation case in Great Britain than in the US. Depp is seen shaking hands with supporters outside the Fairfax County Courthouse on May 27
A public figure in the US is even more difficult for the plaintiff, as he must prove that the statements were also made with ‘actual malice’, meaning that the defendant knew they were false when he made them. .
DailyMail.com spoke with several legal experts on Thursday to explain the key differences between the trial and the scales in Depp’s favor.
Attorney Nicole Haf, partner and chairperson of the litigation department at Romano Law, said she believed Depp’s jury trial was a big factor in her victory.
‘The jurors are unpredictable,’ she said. ‘The UK case was decided by a judge and not a jury. Many trial techniques that are effective on jurors just don’t work on judges.
‘Remember, most judges were trial attorneys prior to taking the bench, so trial technique carries little weight with the judge.’
Criminal attorney Joshua Ritter, who previously served as prosecutor with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, agreed with Half’s analysis.
The system we have here is a jury of your comrades. Judges are not in the category of our peers. They live their lives day and night analyzing the law, which is different from our ‘comrades’, he said. ‘Judges tend to look at cases with a more common sense, plain joe way.
Testimony was given in “such a dramatic, emotional” way and the jury used common sense to say that ‘we don’t believe you’re being truthful with us,’ Ritter said.
He argued that if jurors believed Heard was lying on some accounts, it would lead them to believe that she might be lying on others.
He said, ‘Heard could not produce evidence to support his story, so the jury thinks that ‘at best you are exaggerating for us, at worst you are lying.
In the US case, Depp’s lawyers used the DARVO tactic, an acronym for denial, assault, and reversal of victim and perpetrator, which turned Depp from alleged abuser to victim.
“Depp’s team did an excellent job on all fronts with that type of strategy,” Ritter said. “They didn’t give an inch that even Heard had to testify, which is hard when you’re dealing with a woman who is an alleged victim of both domestic and sexual violence.”
‘You must have followed the person in cross-examination with a delicate touch, but heard pushing back and argued, allowing them to go against him.’
Ritter concluded that, “Depp did a good job of presenting himself as “far more authentic and credible as a victim at the hands of domestic violence” than Heard, even though he was at trial as a victim. was not.’
Haf echoed the claim, telling DailyMail.com: ‘In the US case, Depp’s team effectively questioned Heard’s credibility.’
“This is important because Depp’s lawyers had to convince the jury that the statements in Heard’s 2018 op-ed were either intentionally false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth.” Legally, this is a difficult task. He did this by attacking Heard’s credibility, especially as it pertains to Depp.
Depp’s team produced evidence that the relationship between the actors was extremely bad. Depp’s lawyers portrayed Heard as an abuser and Depp as a good man and a victim of abuse.’
Depp’s British law firm Schillings told DailyMail.com on Thursday that his UK case had “various limitations” that likely affected the verdict, including the absence of a jury, as only a witness rather than a side in the Heard case. Working in, involves a lack of expert testimony. and Depp’s inability to provide verbal evidence of his position. He is pictured leaving the Royal Court of Justice in London on February 26, 2020
Half also believes the testimony of Kate Moss, who was called by Depp’s team as a last-minute surprise witness, and refuted a rumor cited by Heard that Depp once pushed her down the stairs. Given that, she was also ‘not helpful to Herd.’
Ultimately, experts agree that the media circus surrounding the US trial undoubtedly played a role in the verdict.
Although the jury was not set aside, they were instructed not to watch the news, follow the media on the case, or conduct their own research.
However, both lawyers argue that it was almost impossible that the media’s presence in court and publicity of the trial did not carry weight in their minds.
Half argued, “Given the length of this trial and the enormous amount of publicity it has received, it is difficult to imagine that all of the jury followed the judge’s instructions.”
“It would be hard to think they didn’t run into media coverage on the accident,” Ritter said. ‘they Knew that the media was in the courtroom. It was supposed to have an effect on the jury in some way or the other, but I don’t think it affected their decision in any way that it was a malpractice of justice.
Experts also believe that Depp’s jury trial was a big factor in turning the US case in his favor. One legal analyst argues that ‘jurors are unpredictable’ while another said they look at evidence presented in court from a ‘common sense’ point of view. Heard is pictured testifying during a defamation trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court on May 26
In the end, a US jury awarded Depp a total of $15 million – $10 million in compensation and $5 million in punitive damages.
The judge later limited Virginia Commonwealth’s legal maximum of $350,000 to punitive damages, leaving Depp with a total of $8.35 million.
Heard won just one of his three countersuit claims, which pertained to statements made by Depp’s attorney that he and friends had trashed his apartment before calling the police.
Of the $100 million she was seeking, she was awarded only $2 million in compensatory damages and zero dollars in punitive damages. Her spokeswoman, Alafire Hall, said she plans to appeal the decision.