Johnny Depp flipped the script with a libel court win

After 13 hours of deliberation, the jurors who decided the fate of Johnny Depp’s slanderous duel with Amber Heard announced that they had been sentenced. There was only one problem: they forgot to specify the loss.

Judge Penny Azkarat told the jury to return to the deliberation room with no time limit. This can take an hour or even three days. After all, juries have broad powers to assess damages and there is no formula to follow. They don’t get much guidance.

But just fifteen minutes later, the jurors came back with a number. They awarded Depp $15 million in a verdict in the actor’s favor on almost every count. $5 million of the award was punitive damages intended to punish Herd for particularly reprehensible behavior and prevent similar behavior in the future (later reduced to $350,000 under the state’s statutory limit).

The ruling was in stark contrast to Depp’s lawsuit in the UK, where he lost a similar case for defamation. According to legal experts, one of the main differences that changed Depp’s fate is that his case was decided by a jury, as opposed to his trial abroad, which was decided by a judge.

“You have seven jurors with your own baggage,” said Amber Melville-Brown, who oversaw both trials as director of the US media and reputation group at Withers International Law Firm. “A judge may be more used to distancing himself from evidence, while a group of ordinary people may be less able to do so.”

On Wednesday, Depp won a one-sided victory in a lawsuit against Herd, with the three claiming he was a slanderer in an article about his ex-wife. Washington post. Herd won only one of his three counterclaims that Depp insulted him and called his accusations false. He was fined $2 million in a split verdict. ( Correspondence The article now contains the editor’s note on the verdict.)

The headline, deemed defamatory, read: “Spoken out sexual violence and faced the wrath of our culture. That must change.” Other defamatory statements included: “Then two years ago I became a public figure representing domestic violence and felt our culture’s anger towards women speaking out” and “I had a rare perspective of seeing in real time.” “How institutions protect men accused of violence.” Although he did not mention his name in the statements, Depp argued that they implied he had insulted Herd.

In the UK, Depp lost a defamation lawsuit Inside. Because they called it “wife spanking”. As part of the defense, the tabloid was forced to substantiate its defamation claims by the country’s strict laws, unlike the US lawsuit, where the burden of proof rested with Depp.

The court ruled in the case that Inside. It proved that 12 out of 14 cases of violence were essentially true. The case was not decided by the jury.

The UK decision was one of the reasons Depp’s victory in a Virginia court was so unlikely. Claims of defamation by celebrities and other persons of public interest in the United States are extremely difficult to obtain. The reason is that they have to prove that the reporters who made the defamatory statements made them out of factual malice, either knowing they knew the allegations were false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

“In the UK, the plaintiff has a much better chance of winning, whereas in the US the defense has a much better chance,” said George Freeman, director of the Media Law Resource Center. “The opposite happened here.”

The verdict suggests that the jury rejected Herd’s central theory in the case that if there had been a case of violence, he should have won because his statements would have been true. The jury was swayed by Depp’s arguments that Heard faked his injuries, which he recorded with photos and audio recordings, to further his career, regaining his #MeToo moment. They were convinced that Herd had lied about all the cases of violence.

“In contrast to the UK result, seven people gathered around the room and found that not only are there not 12 cases of domestic violence, but zero,” said Lee Berlick, a Virginia defamation attorney. “Not only that, they found that these vague statements don’t make sense. It’s hard to reconcile that with a judge in the UK finding [Heard’s] Tell the truth. “

It should be noted that jurors were not arrested during the Virginia trial, which means they may have been found in the context of some information about the case or third parties. The test turned out to be a gold mine for online influencers who took action on Twitch and YouTube to respond in real-time and post memes on Instagram and Facebook.

Herd’s attorney Elaine Bradhoft was arguing on NBC this day On Thursday, these social networks had a judgment factor.

“[The jury] “He went home every night,” Bradhoft said. “They have families. Families are on social media. We had a 10 day break due to the court conference. In no way can they be influenced. And that was horrible. It was very, very one-sided. It looks like a Roman Colosseum.

According to social media polls, the #JusticeForJohnny campaign was far more popular than posts supporting Hardy. Depp’s post-test message to fans on Instagram on Thursday was liked by 17 million, while Herd’s message was liked by around 300,000. Early in the trial, Herd was mercilessly mocked by his influencers, who claimed he had falsified his testimony about numerous cases of Depp’s violence. He was called a liar for not fulfilling his promise to pay $7 million in divorce money in full to the American Civil Liberties Union and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, even though he explained that he had to stop donating. In a few years, he will pay court fees.

“I was told the jury couldn’t avoid all Johnny Depp fans in and around the courtroom and didn’t shy away from speaking on his behalf on social media,” Freeman said. “It is unrealistic to think that it affected them. If that happened, then we’d all be in trouble.”

However, the choice of nine truly impartial jurors was too much. Herd’s allegations of defiance against Depp, the longtime host of the franchise’s films, have continued since 2016, when he received a restraining order for domestic violence. A man was allowed to sit on the jury despite posting his wife’s text calling Herd “psychotic”. The message reads: “If a man says that a woman has been beaten, they will never believe him.”

The question also arises as to whether the case should be tried in the first place. Prior to the jury hearing, Herd dismissed the suit on the grounds that the statements weren’t specific enough to conclude they were Depp.

Berlik opposed the statement without denying the statement: “I had the rare prospect of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of violence.” While the slander may be implied, he questioned how the claim relates to Depp in general.

“How come all seven minds agree that this was a false statement?” asked Berlick. “It seems more likely that the jury came in and everyone said, ‘We believe in John and we don’t believe in Amber.’

While he agreed with the judge’s decision that the jury should decide whether the statement was defamatory, former California appellate judge Halim Danidina said, “There comes a time when the statement is so vague that it cannot be determined.” Statement of fact. “

Danidina added: “There is a point where the court has to cross the line.”

Another important purpose of the appeal will be whether the trial will be in Virginia and not California, where both parties reside. Depp, at least partially, chose to sue Herd in Virginia because at the time the state did not have an anti-SLAPP law that would allow for early release of free speech lawsuits. azkarat supported pirates Actor advised to consider the case in Virginia when the article is published CorrespondenceFactory in Springfield.

Had the case been transferred to California, Herd could have filed a claim action early under the California Anti-SLAPP Act. In doing so, Herd shifted the burden to Depp to show that he would likely win the case. Legal experts agreed that the change of venue would likely not change the outcome of the trial, but would be one more arrow in Herd’s mare. With a new judge issuing various rulings, such as a willingness to broadcast the judgment publicly, he may have gotten over it.