On Tuesday, a judge ruled that Johnny Depp presented enough evidence to evade Amber Heard’s midterm motion to close her $50 million defamation case.
Judge Penny Azkarat cited witness testimony to support Depp’s accusations that the defamatory charges in the case were false and that Herd may have been “done so recklessly that he voluntarily ignored the truth”.
Filing a motion to strike against Herd is standard practice as she begins presenting her case to 11 jurors deciding whether or not she insulted her ex-husband in a published article. Washington post This didn’t name Depp, but it was related to their time together. The verdict that allowed the case to proceed was widely awaited.
While the main issue at the trial is whether Depp insulted Herd, Herd’s column contains allegedly defamatory statements: 1. “I spoke about 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 a rare perspective of seeing in real time how institutions protect men accused of violence.”
Upon hearing Depp’s case, Herd’s attorney, Ben Rothenborn, argued that there was no doubt that his client had been subjected to some form of harassment, whether verbal, emotional or psychological. He pointed to Depp’s direct testimony that he considers his mother’s verbal abuse as a child a compromise on the matter.
“His mother called him ‘one-eyed’ because of his lazy eye as a child,” Rothenbourne said. “That’s what Depp himself said was an insult.”
Rothenbourne said that all Herd needed to prove to win in court was that Depp had insulted him at some point. He concluded: “In this case, if Mr. Depp abused Ms. Herd, physically, verbally, emotionally or psychologically at least once, so he will win those claims. the gain. It is so easy. “
Ben Chu, who represents Depp, countered that he had produced numerous witnesses, documents and audio recordings that not only met the minimum requirements for a defamation charge, including a difficult standard of wrongdoing, but the alleged defamatory statement was made with the knowledge of that it was false and harmful intent, but to go “an extra mile and show that Mrs. Herd was physically abused” by her client. He yelled at Herd, “He’s a rapist in this room.”
While column statements are typically not defamatory, Virginia law recognizes that defamation can occur with a conclusion or clue.
From the alleged defamatory statements that Herd had become a “public figure representing domestic violence”, Chuu argued that the statement could “imply that he became a figure because he was insulted by Mr. Depp is not because he talked about the problem.” He cited testimony from police officers who protested Herd’s claim that Depp had assaulted him.
Police officers, who were called to the former couple’s home on the night of 2016 when Herd claims Depp attacked him, showed last week that they saw no obvious injuries to their faces.
Shortly before filing for divorce, Herd received a temporary restraining order against Depp. He showed up in court with bruises, likely the result of a fight with Depp.
Los Angeles Police Department officer Tyler Heden testified: “Mrs. Herd refused any medical treatment and had no visible injuries. ”
The testimony contradicts Herd’s claim that Depp injured and repeatedly punched him in the face. But during interrogation, the officer said he didn’t know if Herd had bruises disguised as makeup, as he claims.
“Witnesses are chasing witnesses to confirm that Ms. Heard, far from being a domestic violence figure, is in fact a repeat domestic violence offender,” Chum said.
The question of whether an alleged defamatory statement should have been made under the article’s title, “I spoke out against sexual violence and faced the wrath of our culture,” raised the judge’s concern. He suspended the final decision on whether to continue.
Rottenborn argued that Heard could not be held responsible for the title as written. Washington postAnd Chuu claimed to have heard that he could because he had reposted the work on Twitter.
Chum pointed to the testimony of Terence Dohert, director of operations and counsel for the ACLU. He said the ACLU aims to make readers understand that the charges against Depp were targeted.
During his pre-recorded testimony, Doherty said the ACLU and Hurd reworked the article several times to avoid defamation of Depp.
ACLU communications strategist Robin Schulman wrote the first draft. When asked if Herd was pushing for details of their marriage, Doherty denied it, saying, “The language used in the last article was very different from the original language.”
Doherty was also widely asked about donations to Herd’s organization.
The aquaman The actress pledged $7 million in Depp’s divorce to charity, half to the ACLU and half to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
Heard has shelled out about $1.3 million so far, Dogert showed. He said the ACLU realized it would issue $3.5 million over 10 years and realized that its financial difficulties could affect the total endowment.
Herd was making payments to the ACLU before Depp sued him.
Herd’s representatives declined to comment on the verdict.
On Tuesday, Herd began filing her case with testimony from a psychologist confirming the symptoms of victims of domestic violence. The pack is expected to be up tomorrow.
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Camila Luna is a writer at Gossipify, where she covers the latest movies and television series. With a passion for all things entertainment, Camila brings her unique perspective to her writing and offers readers an inside look at the industry. Camila is a graduate from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with a degree in English and is also a avid movie watcher.