Amber Heard was ordered to pay $15 million in defamation charges

A Virginia jury awarded Johnny Depp $15 million in a libel suit against Amber Heard on Wednesday and upheld all three allegations that he was libelous when Herd wrote the article. Washington post In which she calls herself a survivor of domestic violence. He also amply justified accusations that he had slandered Herd, calling them nonsense.

Herd suffered near-total damages in the case, which revolved around a duel of defamation charges against him and Depp, surpassing just one of their claims in a widely publicized lawsuit symbolically expressing the shortcomings of the #MeToo movement. Herd, who divorced Depp in 2016 after receiving a domestic violence restraining order, has gone to trial on two continents to substantiate claims that Depp was abusing him.

It took the six-man, three-woman jury nearly 13 hours during the three-day hearing to acquit Depp of charges that he insulted Herd by claiming he had lied about the violence. Jurors concluded that Herd was acting with a level of malice or recklessness that was necessary to meet the high standards of public figures on defamation charges.

Depp received $10 million in damages and $5 million in punitive damages, which Judge Penny Azkarat reduced by $350,000 under Virginia law.

Although Herd lost two of the three claims, he won a claim that Depp’s attorney’s statement was defamatory. He said in a statement that Herd had staged an “ambush, prank”, indicating that officers were visiting the couple’s home, presumably on Herd’s initiative. He received $2 million in compensation but no punitive damages.

“The frustration I feel today is beyond words,” Herd said in a statement. “It is heartbreaking that a large body of evidence has not yet been sufficient to withstand the disproportionate strength, influence and influence of my ex-husband.”

Herd added: “I am even more frustrated with what this verdict means for other women. This is a retreat. Go back in time to a time when a woman who talked and talked could be publicly shamed and humiliated. “Rejects the idea that violence against women should be taken seriously.”

Depp, in a lengthy statement celebrating the verdict, said the decision “brought me back to life”.

“From the beginning, the purpose of this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome,” Depp said. “To tell the truth, it is my duty to my children and to all those who will stand steadfast in my support. I feel calm because I know I finally made it. ”

The lawsuit was based on allegations that Herd insulted Depp in his article because it coincided with the couple’s wedding. After Depp filed a $50 million lawsuit, Herd filed a $100 million lawsuit alleging that her ex-husband coordinated a campaign aimed at harassing her.

The alleged defamatory statements in Herd’s column were: 1. “I spoke out against sexual violence and faced the wrath of our culture.” 2. “So, two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic violence and felt our culture’s anger toward women speaking out.” 3. “I had the rare opportunity to see in real time how institutions protect men accused of violence.”

The defamation allegations, which included Herd’s retaliation allegations, were based on allegations by Adam Waldmann, one of Depp’s lawyers, that he was fired after information was leaked to the press. in a statement The Daily Mail In the lawsuit, Waldman said that Hurd “criticized Depp by calling the police”, indicating a police visit to the couple’s home, after which Hurd refused to charge Depp with domestic violence. He said in another statement: “We have reached the end of Herd’s insult to Johnny Depp.”

Jurors were instructed to uphold the complex principles of defamation law in sentencing. One of the legal issues that decided in Depp’s favor was that Herd reposted the post by republishing the article. Under a defamation law, he or she can only be held liable if the jury finds that he or she broadcast or disseminated the content enough to reach a new audience. Simply linking to a hyperlink does not mean republishing.

For either of them to win, they had to prove that the other had made the alleged defamatory statements with factual malice, or with the knowledge that they knew the accusations were false, or that they were acting in reckless disregard for the truth.

The verdict suggests that jurors did not fully believe the evidence obtained from Herd to prove his injuries. They were not convinced by the core theory of Herd’s case that he had been repeatedly abused physically, psychologically, or verbally. They also didn’t care about Herd’s lawyers’ arguments that if they attacked him once, he would win the case.

Ben Rothenborn, Herd’s attorneys, argued in their closing remarks that Herd’s losses would restore the #MeToo movement’s core training in persuading survivors of violence. He urged jurors to “reflect on the message that Depp and his lawyers are sending to Amber and, by extension, all victims of domestic violence everywhere.”

Halim Danidina, a former California appellate judge, noted that the facts of the case were in Depp’s favor, while defamation law standards were in Herd’s favor. He pointed to Herd’s theory about the case that he should have won if he had experienced a single case of violence as convincing.

“This argument makes sense that as long as it was insulted in some way, the title of this post is clearly not wrong,” Danidina said.

The problem with the theory, Danidina continued, is that Herd’s credibility can be so undermined that jurors found it difficult to believe his testimony and were ultimately hesitant to rule in his favor. He said, “Even that [argument] It may be legally true that it is difficult to convince jurors at the jury level that they should pass judgment on this analysis if they are convinced that you lied in the deposition.

The Herd must appeal the sentence.

Herd will likely appeal the decision, allowing jurors to decide whether the author’s title “Spoken Out Sexual Violence and Faced the Wrath of Our Culture” was specific enough to conclude he was referring to Depp. Herd’s lawyers questioned how this statement could be defamatory, as there are no obviously false statements about Depp.

“I think there is a very compelling legal and political argument that in order to protect the right to freedom of expression, legal slander needs to be very restricted in law,” Danidina said. “There comes a time when the statement is so vague that it cannot reasonably be defined as fact. “There is a time when the court has to cross the line.”

The court may also reconsider certain legal issues if it accepts the motion for a new trial or issues a judgment despite the trial. The latter is reserved for the rare situations where the judge handling the case overturns the jury’s decision or reverses its judgment because the jury made an unreasonable decision.

The case attracted wide public attention, with YouTube and Twitch showing the trial in real-time. Litigation can be memorable for most domestic violence survivors because of its sanctity in court. Herd was mercilessly mocked by social media influencers who claimed he falsified his testimony about several instances of Depp’s violence. He was insulted for not fulfilling his promise to pay the entire $7 million divorce settlement to the American Civil Liberties Union and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, although he explained that he had to stop donating to several. Over the years, pay court fees.

“I regularly receive hundreds of death threats, if not every day, thousands since this trial began,” Herd said. “People laugh at my testimony about the attack on me. It was the most painful, painful and humiliating thing I have ever experienced.”

The former couple met while filming in 2011. diary from rome. Heard filed for divorce in 2016, just a year after their marriage. He made headlines when he received a restraining order against Depp, accusing him of violence.