Amber Heard's lawyer says the actor plans to appeal against ex-husband Johnny Depp's victory in their defamation legal battle — a verdict that saw him awarded more than $US10 million ($13.7 million) in damages.
Elaine Bredehoft told NBC Today, just one day after Mr Depp won the lawsuit, that Ms Heard would "absolutely" appeal against the verdict and she had "some excellent grounds for it".
She said there were several "evidentiary issues" in the case.
"A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed, and it caused the jury to be confused," Ms Bredehoft said.
"We even had tried to get the UK judgement in to dismiss his case because he already had his shot, and that’s one of the issues, but also a number of the evidentiary issues.
"There was so much evidence that did not come in."
When asked if Ms Heard could afford to pay the $US10.35 million in damages, Ms Bredehoft said: "Oh absolutely not".
As a public figure, Mr Depp faced a high bar to win his libel lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard.
But according to seven unanimous jurors, he cleared it.
Mr Depp said his ex-wife defamed him in a 2018 newspaper op-ed in which she alluded to abuse allegations against Mr Depp. His name was never mentioned.
The Virginia civil jury ruled in favour of Mr Depp on all three of his counts on Wednesday, finding that Ms Heard had not only made false and defamatory statements, but that she'd done so with "actual malice" — a higher threshold for cases involving public figures.
Mr Depp's victory was not absolute, though. Jurors also concluded that part of Ms Heard's counterclaim had merits. They rejected two of Ms Heard's three counts, but found she was defamed by a lawyer for Mr Depp who accused her of roughing up their apartment to look worse for police. The jury awarded her $US2 million.
Here's a look at each count jurors considered.
First count against Heard
Jurors considered whether Mr Depp was defamed by the online headline of the op-ed in The Washington Post: "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."
Ms Heard's lawyers argued she didn't write the headline.
But jurors concluded Ms Heard "made or published" it and that it was defamatory.
Second count against Heard
Jurors considered the op-ed's third paragraph: "Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out."
Mr Depp's attorneys said it clearly referenced Mr Depp, given that Ms Heard publicly accused him of domestic violence in 2016.
Ms Heard's lawyers said a mountain of evidence showed Ms Heard was abused numerous times, and that just one instance of proven abuse would make the line not defamatory. They also argued the statement was objectively true, because it was focused not on Mr Depp, but on Ms Heard's experience speaking out.
Jurors disagreed, finding the statement defamatory.
Third count against Heard
In a second passage in the op-ed, Ms Heard wrote, "I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse."
Mr Depp's attorneys again said it clearly referenced Mr Depp.
And, as with the other two counts, the jurors found Ms Heard had defamed Mr Depp with "actual malice" — there was clear and convincing evidence that Ms Heard either knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
First count against Depp
Ms Heard levied three counts of defamation against Mr Depp, saying she'd been repeatedly defamed by his former attorney Adam Waldman, who called Ms Heard's abuse allegations a hoax. Ms Heard said the comments hurt her career.
Jurors considered a statement from Mr Waldman that appeared on The Daily Mail's website April 8, 2020:
"Amber Heard and her friends in the media use fake sexual-violence allegations as both a sword and shield depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sexual-violence hoax 'facts' as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr Depp."
Jurors concluded that Ms Heard's attorneys had not proven all the elements of defamation.
Second count against Depp
Ms Heard scored her only victory over a statement Mr Waldman gave to The Daily Mail. He accused Ms Heard and her friends of fabricating abuse allegations following a 2016 fight in the couple's Hollywood penthouse that prompted Ms Heard to call police.
The statement reads:
"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempt didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."
Two officers testified they saw no signs Ms Heard was injured, though she appeared in public with a mark on her face a few days later seeking a temporary restraining order.
Jurors agreed with Ms Heard's attorneys that Mr Waldman's statement was false and defamatory and that he'd acted with actual malice.
Third count against Depp
The final count against Waldman involved a statement from the same article: "We have reached the beginning of the end of Ms Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp."
Jurors concluded Ms Heard's lawyers had not proven the statement to be defamatory.
What have legal experts said about the verdict?
It's very likely Amber Heard will appeal the verdict, according to English solicitor Mark Stephens, who said there may have been legal errors during the case.
"I think it's almost inevitable that Amber Heard would have to appeal this verdict," Mr Stephens told the ABC.
"There were quite a lot of legal and procedural errors that the judge in Virginia seems to have caused."
But even if there are errors of law to appeal, Mr Stephens said it would be tough to overturn the jury's verdict.
New York matrimonial and family law attorney Brent Ward also said there were "some inconsistencies in the verdict."
"Johnny Depp's basis of knowledge is what Amanda (Amber) Heard said to that publication was false and malicious," he said.
"Yet Johnny Depp's lawyers spoke out about her actions being false and malicious, and they found that to be true, too. So there may be some what I call post-trial motions, which is what you call judgement, notwithstanding the verdict, and say, 'judge, this can't hold' what the evidence has provided. The jury could not have concluded this way," Mr Ward said.
The verdicts also bring an end to a televised trial that Depp had hoped would help restore his reputation, though it turned into a spectacle that offered a window into a vicious marriage.
Throughout the proceedings, fans who were overwhelmingly on Depp's side lined up overnight for coveted courtroom seats. Spectators who couldn't get in gathered on the street to cheer Depp and jeer Heard whenever they appeared outside.
Mr Ward believes that played a role in the verdict.
"Johnny Depp won the trial of public opinion when you read the information that's out there. But also, juries are a cross-section of the community. So whatever the population was prone to do, the jury was prone to do too," he said.
San Francisco-based attorney Warrington Parker says while Depp was awarded considerably more money, that's not what gave him the victory.
In the trial, Mr Depp also spoke of the physical abuse he endured from Ms Heard.
"[He] got in front of that jury and said, 'I was abused'," Mr Ward said.
"And I think, as I recall, it is a mostly male jury. And I think that a number of them could have said no man would get up in front of the whole world and say he was beat up by his wife unless it was true."
He called it a risky strategy, but said the audiotape of Ms Heard criticising Mr Depp was the turning point.
"She didn't sound like a victim there. She sounded like an abuser challenging him to dare go forward with this. And I think that to me and all the evidence I heard, that was the most pro Johnny Depp piece of evidence. And I think that could have carried the day with the jury."
Mr Parker shares that opinion.
"I don't think you can lose sight of the fact that this was very much to his advantage to paint Amber Heard in this way in order to win his defamation lawsuit," Mr Parker said.
This isn't the first time Depp has filed for defamation
Once among Hollywood's biggest stars, Mr Depp said Ms Heard's allegations cost him "everything."
A new Pirates movie was put on hold and Mr Depp was replaced in the Fantastic Beasts film franchise, a Harry Potter spin-off.
Less than two years ago, Mr Depp lost his defamation case in the UK's High Court against tabloid newspaper The Sun over an article that labelled him a "wife-beater".
High Court Judge Andrew Nicol said he accepted claims from Ms Heard that he had violently assaulted her during their tempestuous five-year relationship.
In 2022, Depp's lawyers filed the US case in Fairfax County, Virginia, because the Washington Post is printed there.
ABC/wires
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiaWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIyLTA2LTAzL2VhY2gtY291bnQtdGhlLWpvaG5ueS1kZXBwLWFtYmVyLWhlYXJkLWp1cm9ycy1jb25zaWRlcmVkLzEwMTEyMDgxONIBAA?oc=5
2022-06-03 06:49:43Z
1455241463
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar