{"id":149634,"date":"2022-12-06T10:00:45","date_gmt":"2022-12-06T10:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/amber-heards-appeal-lists-16-ways-the-court-screwed-her-over-in-johnny-depp-defamation-case\/"},"modified":"2022-12-06T10:00:45","modified_gmt":"2022-12-06T10:00:45","slug":"amber-heards-appeal-lists-16-ways-the-court-screwed-her-over-in-johnny-depp-defamation-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/amber-heards-appeal-lists-16-ways-the-court-screwed-her-over-in-johnny-depp-defamation-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Amber Heard’s Appeal Lists 16 Ways the Court Screwed Her Over in Johnny Depp Defamation Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo, Kevin Mazur (Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

When it comes to yet another legal update in the sordid saga that is Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s Virginia defamation trial, I know what you’re thinking: Here we go again. As someone who’s been there to document every court filing, callous social media response, and gummy bear gobble, I hear you. Unfortunately, the battle drags on. <\/p>\n

In the last month, both Depp and Heard have sought to appeal the verdict, which concluded both parties had defamed each other\u2014Heard, via her Washington Post<\/em> op-ed, and Depp via a statement from his attorney that argues he shouldn’t be held accountable for defaming her. Heard’s appeal, filed by her new representation, David L. Axelrod and Jay Ward Brown of Ballard Spahr (a firm specializing in constitutional law), is aptly leaning all<\/em> the way into First Amendment arguments and excoriating the actions of Judge Penney Azcarate.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/p>\n

\u201cAfter Depp filed this case, the United Kingdom High Court Justice of ruled in a separate defamation action brought by Depp that Heard’s abuse were true,\u201d the 68-page document reads. \u201cThe trial court should have given preclusive effect to that 129-page decision, which followed a three-week trial at which Depp, Heard, and 24 other witnesses tested.\u201d Though the filing’s broad argument is that this case shouldn’t have gone to trial at all, the document details 16 specific court errors. The venue of the trial is among the weightiest.<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of the conduct relevant to Depp’s defamation claims occurred in Virginia,\u201d the document reads. \u201cDepp is a resident of California. The incidents that led to Heard obtaining the restraining order took place in California, not Virginia.\u201d<\/p>\n

Virginia, the attorneys argue, is \u201ca wholly inconvenient forum with no connection to Depp or any meaningful connection to his claims.\u201d The document also contents that it played a significant role in why few people were able to testify on Heard’s behalf. \u201cNumerous courts interpreting Virginia law have concluded that the place of the wrong for internet defamation claims is where\u201c plaintiff incurs the greatest reputational injury, \u201dwhich typically is their\u201c home state. \u201d<\/p>\n