After Johnny Depp largely won his defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard, her lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, announced that her client “absolutely” intends to appeal.
A jury of five men and two women announced on Wednesday (June 1st) that it had found Ms Hurd slandering Mr Depp with three statements. The jurors also found that Ms. Hurd had been slandered by one of the three statements in her counter-investigation.
The Independent spoke with three attorneys about Ms. Hurd’s possible grounds for appeal or even a new lawsuit: Lisa Bloom of The Bloom Firm, whose clients include Janice Dickinson, Misha Barton and several victims of Jeffrey Epstein; Jesse Weber, host and attorney for Law & Crime, covering the trial from the Fairfax Courthouse, Virginia; and Mitra Ahurayan, an entertainment lawyer in Beverly Hills who represents actors, directors, producers and musicians.
The phrasing of Amber Heard’s op-order
Ms Bloom saw several issues to be appealed in the Depp v. Hurd verdict, starting with the wording of the 2018 Washington Post publication, which stems from Depp’s allegations of defamation.
“Because of the First Amendment, the right words [of a given statement] have been carefully studied, “she said. “Here, Amber Heard said only that she is a public figure representing domestic violence. In my opinion, this means that even if she has been a victim of domestic violence even once, the allegation is true and the case is over. She did not have to win that she was the victim of many incidents or even significant incidents. It’s just domestic violence of some kind. “
Ms Bloom emphasized the fact that Ms Hurd had “not even mentioned” Mr Depp in the document, which meant that the Court of Appeal could say that the comment was not specific enough to override her rights to First Amendment.
One of the three statements in Mr Depp’s case is the title of the publication, which is another potential problem from Mrs Bloom’s point of view.
“[Ms Heard[] she was found to have slandered him on the basis of a title she did not write, but simply retweeted, “she said. “This verdict, if confirmed, will cause major problems with the First Amendment for the millions of tweeps that RT articles all day. Will they be held liable for defamation if the article is inaccurate? “
Damage
Ms Bloom also saw possible problems in the way jurors award damages: after announcing their first sentence, they were sent back because they seemed to have failed to award some or all of the necessary damages. They returned shortly afterwards, awarding Depp $ 15 million and Ms. Hurd $ 2 million. (Judge Penny Azkarate adjusted the compensation awarded to Mr. Depp to meet the state limit; in fact, he was awarded $ 10.35 million.)
The timing of Ms Bloom’s compensation award “seems very ridiculous” and is an issue she would raise on appeal.
Possible evidence problems
Mr Weber referred to the statements made by Ms Bredehoft in post-trial interviews to outline possible strategies for Ms Hurd’s legal team.
“The appeal’s arguments focus on what Hurd considers to be the judge’s incorrect legal decisions. That is why making objections and requests in the course of the process is so important in order to keep these issues for appeal, “he said.
Based on Elaine Bredehoft’s comments after the sentencing, it appears that they will focus on evidence that was “suppressed” during the trial, such as medical records and possibly challenging damaging evidence from [Mr Depp] was allowed to be introduced. It also seems [Ms Heard’s team] challenged the fact that the UK decision, where a judge found numerous cases of abuse of [Mr Depp]it cannot be presented to the jury. “
Mr. Depp is suing The Sun’s publishing company in 2018 for a title he called “beating women.” A judge ruled against him in the case of the United Kingdom in 2020.
Ms. Hurd’s attorneys “could also argue that there were problems with the jury’s instructions / jury forms,” Mr. Weber added.
Ms Ahouraian emphasized the fact that “an appellate judge does not reconsider the facts and does not question the jury’s verdict”.
“An appellate judge checks if there was a legal error that led to an unfair decision, for example, if the judge made a serious mistake, such as excluding evidence that was relevant,” she said.
“[Ms Heard]’S lawyers argue that relevant evidence that could affect the outcome of the case has been ruled out. Some of this evidence fell into the UK’s lawsuit against The Sun, which [Mr Depp] lost and failed to enter this process, which makes it understandable, but the laws there, of course, are different.
“Inconsistent” sentence
In an interview with BBC Newsnight, Ms Bloom described the verdict in Depp v. Hurd as “inconsistent” due to the way the jury found that both Mr Depp and Ms Hurd had been slandered.
The jurors found that Mr Depp had been slandered in Mrs Hurd’s report, in which she described herself as a “public figure representing domestic violence”, but also found that Ms Hurd had been slandered in a statement by Adam Waldman (Mr. Depp’s former lawyer) called some of Ms. Hurd’s allegations “fraud.”
“How is it possible that Amber Heard was slandered when Johnny Depp’s lawyer said her allegations were fraudulent, and yet Johnny Depp was also slandered when he said he was a representative of domestic violence?” the program. “I think it’s inconsistent and you can’t have an inconsistent sentence.”
Mr Weber questioned whether this could be a solid basis for an appeal, as “usually appeals are not related to the jury’s decision per se”.
He also pointed to a specific statement that jurors consider defamed Ms. Hurd. It was a statement in which Mr Waldman said: “It was just an ambush, a fraud. They set up Mr. Depp by calling the cops, but the first attempt didn’t work. The officers came to the penthouses, searched thoroughly and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to the face or property. So Amber and her friends poured some wine and cleared the area, clarified their stories under the guidance of a lawyer and publicist, and then called 911.
For Mr Weber, the sentence is not necessarily inconsistent. “In practice, the jurors said we did not believe [Ms Heard] was telling the truth about her experience with Johnny Depp, namely that she had experienced violence, but we also believe that [Mr Depp]His lawyer, who acted as his agent, went too far and said this incorrectly [Ms Heard] and her friends staged the scene of an alleged attack, “he said. “They might believe that Hurd wasn’t actually hit in the face with a cell phone, as she claimed in May 2016, but they also don’t think her friends helped create an attack to cover up the scam.
The jury
The jurors were not isolated during the seven weeks of the trial. They were instructed not to read the case or to conduct any external investigations, but the length of the proceedings, combined with the fact that it was televised and widely discussed online, raised questions about whether jurors could remain isolated from any content related to the process.
“[Ms Heard’s team] it may even try to show that because the jury is not isolated, they have been exposed to all Depp and media control fans and this has tarnished the verdict, “Mr Weber said, adding that it seemed will be a major problem for [Ms Heard]The appeal team.
“On the one hand, you can certainly ask how they were not exposed and tainted by the coverage, the crowds, the social media,” Mr Weber said. “On the other hand, this is a conjecture. They were instructed not to look at any external materials and not to look at anything about the process. Unless the juror does an interview and says something about it, or unless [Ms Heard]The jury can provide evidence of misconduct to jurors, which is currently a speculative argument and unlikely to succeed.
Ms Ahouraian emphasized the judge’s decision not to sequester the jury.
“It makes sense for the jury to be isolated in a high-profile case, not just to be ‘instructed’ not to go online or talk to anyone about the case,” she said. “This is not realistic in a case like this: people go home to their families and the case is everywhere. I’m sure that giving the jury the advantage of suspicion, perhaps when someone was checking their email or something seemingly harmless, some information came up.
Although Ms Ahouraian acknowledged this possibility and the fact that she “could have a strong impact on the outcome and make the process unfair”, she was not sure that this would be a legal error, “as I do not know if anyone could predict the level of attention on social media and the evil people they are targeting [Ms Heard]”
“However, if the juror did indeed watch online and actually heard or saw something despite the judge’s order, this could be grounds for improper litigation,” she added.
Ms Bloom suggested that potential problems with jurors could lead to appearing or even a new trial, but acknowledged such difficulties.
“She will have to prove this intervention, which would be a challenge,” she said. “Perhaps a juror will talk about this in an interview with the press. I will watch for that. Stay on the line!”
Add Comment