'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
American actress Amber Heard said that she was disappointed with the verdict of her high-profile defamation case against estranged husband Johnny Depp after it was announced that the jurors ruled in the latter's favor on June 1.
The seven-person jury awarded Depp $10.35 million in the name of compensatory and punitive charges, which Heard's lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, said her client could not pay. She also said that Amber intends to appeal the verdict.
The Independent spoke to three lawyers - Lisa Bloom, Jesse Weber, and Mitra Ahouraian - on Amber Heard’s possible grounds for an appeal.
What did the lawyers propose were the possible grounds for Amber Heard to appeal?
Evidentiary Issues
As per Law Insider, an Evidentiary Hearing is one in which one or more participants present evidence for the record. A Testimonial Hearing is an Evidentiary Hearing. However, an Evidentiary Hearing may not always include witnesses testifying in person.
While speaking with The Independent, Jesse Weber, a Law & Crime network host and attorney cited remarks made by Heard's attorney Elaine Bredehoft in interviews following the trial to describe prospective options for Heard's prosecution team.
"The arguments on appeal are focused on what Heard believes are incorrect legal rulings by the judge. That is why making objections and motions during the course of the trial is so important to preserve these issues for appeal.”
Weber further predicts that if the case is opened up again, Heard's team will be focusing on proof that was not given much importance at the trial.
“Based on Elaine Bredehoft’s comments after the verdict, it seems they will be focusing on evidence that was ‘suppressed’ at trial, such as medical records, and perhaps arguing prejudicial evidence from [Depp] was allowed to be introduced. It also seems [Heard’s team] took issue with the fact that the UK ruling, where a judge found multiple instances of abuse by [Depp], could not be presented to the jury.”
In 2018, Depp sued The Sun's publishing firm for a headline that dubbed him a "wife-beater." In 2020's UK lawsuit, a court decided to rule against him.
Amber Heard's counsel, according to Weber, "could also argue that there were problems with the jury instructions/jury form."
The jury was not sequestered
During the seven-week trial, jurors were not sequestered. They were not allowed to read up on the case or conduct any outside research, but the length of the proceedings, along with the fact that it was broadcast on television and was widely discussed online, has prompted concerns about whether jurors could have kept isolated from any trial-related information.
Mitra Ahouraian highlighted the judge’s decision not to sequester the jury:
“It makes sense that the jury on a highly publicized case like this should be sequestered, not just ‘instructed’ to not go on the Internet or talk to anyone about the case. That isn’t realistic in a case like this: People go home to their families, and the case is everywhere.”
While Ahouraian acknowledges that although there might be a possibility that this could have impacted the trial verdict, she is uncertain if it would be counted as a legal error.
The phrasing of the words
Lisa Bloom pointed to numerous appealable concerns in the Depp v Heard judgment, beginning with the phrasing of the actress' 2018 op-ed article in The Washington Post, which was the crux of Johnny Depp's defamation charges.
“Because of the First Amendment, the precise words [of a given statement] are closely scrutinized. Here, Amber Heard said only that she was a public figure representing domestic violence. In my view, this means that if even she was a domestic violence victim even once, the statement is true, and the case is over. She did not have to win that she was a victim of multiple incidents, or even significant incidents. Just domestic violence of some kind.”
Bloom emphasized that Amber Heard never even identified Depp in the op-ed, which means the appellate court may find the statement was not precise enough to override her First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, she discussed the op-ed's title, one of the three statements in Depp's case, causing another issue in her point of view. Bloom said that Amber Heard "merely retweeted" the piece's headline and did not write it, and if the First Amendment is being practiced, it will cause problems for millions of people who retweet all day long as they might be held liable.
Damages
Bloom also noted potential issues with how jurors awarded damages. After they announced their judgment, they were brought back because it appeared they had neglected to grant part or all of the appropriate damages. They returned shortly after, having given Depp $15 million and Amber Heard $2 million. Bloom believes the timing of the damage award "seems very slapdash," and she intends to appeal.
Inconsistent verdict
Lisa Bloom dubbed the high-profile trial verdict as "inconsistent" since jurors determined that Depp and Heard were defamed.
While speaking on BBC Newsnight, she said:
“How can it be that Amber Heard was defamed when Johnny Depp’s lawyer said that her allegations were a hoax, and yet Johnny Depp was also defamed when she said she was representative of domestic violence? I think that’s inconsistent, and you can’t have an inconsistent verdict.”
Jurors ruled that Depp was defamed in Heard's op-ed, in which she identifies herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse," but also that Heard was defamed in a statement by Depp's former lawyer Adam Waldman, who called some of Amber Heard's accusations "a hoax."
