Johnny Depp’s lawyers deny social media-influenced jurors, verdict will affect approach to #MeToo victims

Johnny Depp’s attorneys deny that the outcome of actress Amber Heard’s defamation trial affects the #MeToo movement and victims of domestic violence, and deny Heard’s attorneys’ claim that social media influenced the jury surrounding the trial in TV.

Camille Vasquez and Ben Chu, who represented Depp at the trial, attended good morning america s this day Separate interviews Wednesday morning about the outcome of the trial. appear this day And in a conversation with Savannah Guthrie, who revealed earlier in the interview that her husband had consulted with Depp’s team on the matter, Vasquez responded if they were worried the verdict would offend other victims of violence.

Vásquez said they were “Here This one Conversation About The Case This one We The try. ”

“I medium, To be honest, We Do not do “Don’t worry,” he continued. “We Foment All Victim This one comes here Advance s has Their of the day inside Block, what That is Exactly which occurred inside East the case. ”

gave a similar answer Good morning America! But read more. “Domestic violence has no sex,” he said. “We believe the verdict speaks for itself. The facts are what they were. The jury reached a unanimous decision based on these facts.

Talking about this day Gatrim silently said that he and Vasquez had “Final Confidence inside John s The judge s The Facts ONE East the case. Does that include whether social media influences the verdict? Herd’s lawyer argued last week that jurors who weren’t arrested were swayed by his decision on social media surrounding the trial, turning the case into a “zoo”.

“How can you not [see it]? Bradhoft said this day. “[The jury] He went home every night. 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’s like the Colosseum in Rome.”

Chum called the statement “disappointing” and argued that the judge in the case was “very fair to both sides”.

“I think it was very frustrating to hear that and to know that he was protesting the nature of the jury and the evidence came to get him,” she said, later adding, “Oath.”

“O That is “Everywhere.” “Butah ONE The The same Time, They we are exhorted Each only Night, s They Dyed ONE Huge money ONE Respect, I Think for that The Block s The Process, s They we are What to do The The best This one They He could. “

Guthrie disputed Depp’s summary of the win, noting that the jury also held the actor responsible for the defamatory statements. daily mail By his attorney, Adam Waldman, who charged Herd.”put on the scene ONE Scene inside Further ONE ANY Abuse Joke ” this day Said the co-host. When asked how Depp’s team could “fix” that conclusion, Vasquez denied that the verdict wasn’t “primarily positive” for Depp.

“ᲛᲔ Think This is Simply The Judgment That is generally Positive for that John, s O I was “Unanimously,” he added. “T.Here we are Seven People This one He decided O I was Slander. “

Later, when Guthrie Duet was asked about Depp’s orchestrated social media campaign against Heard, Vasquez called it “categorically wrong”. The silent accusation is described as follows:Completely “Unfounded” and “absolutely absurd”.

“In fact, at a very early stage of the case, former President White rejected any voice or objection related to this,” he added.

Why there were conflicting rulings in the US case, which included libel charges directly between Herd and Depp, compared to the UK case where Depp lost the libel claim to the British tabloid. Inside. Vasquez said: “Among them he called the beating of a wife.The Absolute evidence This one I was subject inside East Case inside Virginia distant Exceeded which I was subject inside The Great Britain”

In the declaration delivered hollywood reporter, spokesperson for Manada, responded to Vázquez and Chuu’s interventions on the morning’s program: არს What’s next? Movies and Merchandising Offer?

Herd and his attorney said they would appeal a verdict that required the actor to pay Depp $10 million, which Bradhoft said the actor “absolutely” could not have. when reading GMA Chum told the editorial about these plans that it was a matter of Depp’s reputation, not money.

“Never went to Mr. Depp for the money,” he said. “It was to restore his reputation and he did.”