Legal experts are analyzing Johnny Depp’s trial triumph over ex-wife Amber Heard not just for the twists and turns of the courtroom drama but also for the broader consequences the jury’s ruling will have in the greater world.
Several analysts claimed the judgment in the defamation proceedings, in which Depp won, was a setback for the #MeToo movement and demonstrated a suspicion and disdain of Heard. Some believed it would harm the cause of women who have complained about being abused by prominent men.
After a six-week trial, the jury determined that Heard defamed her ex-husband in a Washington Post opinion piece and behaved maliciously by portraying him as a domestic abuser. According to Depp, the damage lost him millions of dollars and significant opportunities after decades as an A-lister.
Jurors awarded him $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, which the court quickly lowered to the statutory maximum of $350,000 in Virginia.
Heard, for her part, received a $2 million verdict for defamation after one of Depp’s attorneys accused her of arranging a farce that involved destroying an apartment and pouring wine to make the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star seem guilty of violence.
According to legal experts, including Greg Smith, a notable Los Angeles and Texas civil attorney who has won tens of millions of dollars in civil judgments, Depp was found guilty of defamation since the trial showed no genuine evidence to defend the fake charge.
“From a #metoo standpoint, it’s … bad and dangerous,” said the University of California, Irvine law professor Susan Seager, a First Amendment legal expert who spent decades representing media organizations.
“I just believe that sends a poor signal to men and women, or whatever the abuser is, that you can just sue your victim and ruin them by bringing them to court for a defamation action,” Seager said. “It sends a signal that if you have the money to hire a lawyer — or even employ a defamation lawyer on contingency, meaning they take a percentage of your win — you can win against an accuser.”
Lara Yeretsian, a veteran lawyer who was part of the legal team for convicted killer Scott Peterson, said celebrity cases are about the players’ personalities as much as the attorneys. Yeltsin described Heard as a “poor witness,” adding that “when a witness begins inflating a tale, exaggerating and overdramatizing, that person loses credibility.”
She said that the case served as a caution to accusers. “With this decision, the jury conveyed a clear message: Do not bring false domestic violence charges. If you do, you will pay a high price!”
According to David Ring, a Southern California civil attorney representing multiple sexual-abuse claimants, including those accusing Harvey Weinstein, the case is difficult for victim advocates to support.
“I’m not sure if it can be compared to a #MeToo situation. Johnny Depp obviously has a lot of celebrity power, and here are two celebrities revealing their dirty linen, “Ring said.
In the end, the ruling made in a Virginia courtroom on Wednesday might be reversed or appealed.
According to Seager, Heard’s attorneys will likely contest the judgments since they are inconsistent and contradictory. She stated that proving economic damage was complex and would be grounds for a legal challenge.
According to Smith, the story provided to jurors drives jury trials. He stated that it was shocking how much irrelevant testimony was permitted on the record in the Depp-Heard case. Depp, for example, was “permitted to speak on aspects of his life and his mother that had no relevance to the facts of the case.” Smith said that, to some extent, the judge — like many in celebrity cases —Some of the time, he lost control, which provides reasonable grounds for an appeal.
Comments are closed.