Amber Heard didn’t win outright on the jury defamation case Some legal experts said she was brought in by her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, because the panel most likely determined he lacked credibility.

The lawsuit focused on an op-ed heard published in The Washington Post in 2018. In the piece, which does not name Depp, Heard said she had become a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” Depp’s lawyers said this indirectly referred to the allegations leveled against him during their 2016 divorce.

Depp was awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. Fairfax County Circuit Judge Penny Ezcart reduced Depp’s punitive damages to $350,000, which is the state’s statutory limit, or legal limit, bringing his total damages to $10.4 million.

Hurd, who countered, was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages but $0 in punitive damages. He plan to appeal,

Some experts, such as NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savelos, said the jury found the verdict wrong, suggesting that the trial should not be at fault for either side.

“The jury should have instead held neither party liable” Depp’s $50 million lawsuit against Heard and Heard’s $100 million countersuit,” Cevallos wrote In one opinion, saying that “there was a lot of evidence in this case” to prove why. “In other words, no one should have won; Everyone should have lost.”

In interviews on Wednesday, three other legal experts said Depp’s victory was particularly surprising, given that he lost a defamation case in the United Kingdom two years ago.

Depp sued the parent company in 2018 for calling The Sun and the newspaper’s executive editor a “wife beater.” Justice Andrew Nicholl ruled against Depp in 2020, saying British tabloids had produced enough evidence to show that Depp was violent against Heard. On at least 12 occasions out of 14.

But a seven-person jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, “found Amber Heard not credible at all,” said Limor Mozdehijad, a family law plaintiff in Los Angeles who updated her more than 447,000 TikTok followers about the trial. .
“For a jury to find genuine malice and defamation in a case like this, it really has to be that they didn’t find Amber Heard credible and that they stopped hearing her case,” Mojdehijad said.

The jury, which began deliberations on Friday, came to its decision after nearly 13 hours over three days. The high-profile trial was broadcast across the country and garnered many headlines.

Legal experts who spoke to NBC News, including Mojdehijad, said there are a myriad of reasons why the jury may have found Heard less credible, including how he gave his testimony and the disparity in quality between the legal teams appointed by Heard and Depp. is included.

Mojdehijad said factors such as the body language of Herds and Depp and the length of the test may also have played a role in the outcome.

Criminal defense lawyer and retired judge Haleem Dhanidina said the jury members, who were not set aside, could have been exposed to material related to the case on social media.

“The jury is given wide latitude in determining the credibility of witnesses, and can include not only what a person says but how they say it,” Dhanidina said. “And the jury had plenty of time to evaluate Amber Heard and her testimony.”

Some say Depp made his case well

When asked what might have tarnished Heard’s credibility the most on the stand, Mozdehizad said Depp, who testified before Heard, established his case “really well.”

“The proof that Johnny Depp got here, took six weeks of testing. … Not many people can have their cases this way,” she said. “Johnny had a unique case. He is a unique individual.”

Experts said Depp explained his side of the relationship well and had strong witnesses who were able to poke holes in Heard’s story before he ever uttered a word in court.

Shannon Curry Mozdehijad, the clinical psychologist who testified on Depp’s behalf, helped portray Heard as an exaggeration.

Curry, who spent 12 hours with Heard, described her as suffering from borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. She argued that Don Hughes, a clinical psychologist called to the stand by Heard’s legal team, did not administer proper testing to arrive at the diagnosis that Heard had post-traumatic stress disorder.

Depp’s team “Dr. Curry told us what to expect from Amber’s personality,” Mozdehijad said. “And Dr. Curry was a fan favorite.”

Brett Turnbull, a lawyer, It also said that the audio played in the courtroom may have damaged Heard’s credibility.

Depp’s lawyer played audio in which Heard told Depp that he should tell the world he was a victim of domestic abuse and that it was a “fair fight.” In another audio clip, Heard told Depp that “was killing“Him, but didn’t “punch” him as he claimed.

Heard was “basically trying to use different words to characterize the alleged abuse by Depp, which was too confusing, misleading, and not a good character builder for him,” Turnbull said.

Dhanidina said Depp’s legal team also appears to be more organized and provides stronger evidence and more credible witnesses. In such high-profile cases, the skill of the legal team matters, he added.

Heard’s makeup clarification could have sparked

Experts said discrepancies in the case, some of which were brought up by his own legal team, could also have hurt Hurd’s credibility.

Dhanidina pointed to suggestions from Heard’s attorneys that she used a certain makeup kit that wasn’t available to actually hide the bruise during her relationship with Depp.

In early statements, Heard’s attorney held the Milani Cosmetics color-correcting palette, saying that Heard had used it to help heal injuries while being abused by her ex-husband.

Milani Cosmetics denied that statement.online, saying that its Conceal + Perfect All-in-One Correcting Kit wasn’t released until December 2017 — more than a year after Hurd filed for a temporary restraining order. Depp supporters used the issue online to allege that Heard was lying about the abuse.

heard later Clarified what makeup products she used while she was on the stand. She told the court that she used the makeup she referred to as a “bruise kit,” using a theater makeup kit to hide her injuries.

But moments like these could have flagged jurors’ minds, Dhanidina said.

What could be the future for similar cases

Some legal experts feared the jury’s decision could set a dangerous precedent for domestic violence survivors.

Heard, who met Depp on the set of the film “The Rum Diary” in 2011 and married him in 2015, testified about several incidents of alleged physical abuse before and during their marriage, saying that their violent episodes were usually But some were caused by a combination of alcohol. , drugs or jealousy. Depp has denied being violent with Heard or any other woman.

She said the first act of physical violence occurred in 2013, adding that he slapped her three times in a day while he laughed at one of his tattoos. “I’ll never forget it,” said Hurd. “It changed my life.”

Heard alleges other incidents of physical violence, describing the occasions when, she said, Depp slapped her, threw her to the ground, grabbed her by the hair, pushed her against a wall, hit her head. and threw objects including drinking glasses. And a cellphone.

Heard’s lawyers presented evidence they said supported her claims, including cellphone photos of Heard with bruises on her face, texts sent to Depp using violent language, and an audio recording of Heard blatantly Rupa was pleading to put down a knife. Depp’s lawyers said without providing evidence that the images had been tampered with.

Upon cross-examination, Depp’s lawyers pressed Heard as to why he did not have medical records to substantiate the assault charge.

Jennifer Baker, legal director and senior counsel for the National Judicial Education Program at Legal Momentum, a legal defense and education fund for women, said the ruling could deter domestic violence survivors from speaking out against their abusers.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, “there has been an explosion of retaliatory lawsuits specifically designed to intimidate and silence survivors,” Baker said.

Experts were mixed about whether the average person can expect an outcome like the Depp-Hurd verdict. Turnbull said that although this is a “very unique case”, similar cases should be brought up again.

“The world lives in the public domain, certainly more than ever,” he said. “It is clear to me, and it is an opinion, that Johnny Depp used this test as an opportunity to rebuild his public image.”

He said he hoped the court system would not be used “as a puppet” for image rehabilitation.

Source: thegooglenews