{"id":37589,"date":"2022-06-05T13:30:59","date_gmt":"2022-06-05T13:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/what-attorneys-say-about-amber-heards-options-to-appeal-johnny-depp-verdict\/"},"modified":"2022-06-05T13:30:59","modified_gmt":"2022-06-05T13:30:59","slug":"what-attorneys-say-about-amber-heards-options-to-appeal-johnny-depp-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/harchi90.com\/what-attorneys-say-about-amber-heards-options-to-appeal-johnny-depp-verdict\/","title":{"rendered":"What attorneys say about Amber Heard’s options to appeal Johnny Depp verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"
TO<\/span>fter Johnny Depp largely prevailed in his defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard, her attorney Elaine Bredehoft announced her client \u201cabsolutely\u201d intends to appeal.<\/p>\n The jury of five men and two women announced on Wednesday (1 June) it had found that Ms Heard defamed Mr Depp on three statements. Jurors also found that Ms Heard was defamed by one of three statements di lei in her countersuit di lei.<\/p>\n The Independent<\/em> spoke with three attorneys about Ms Heard’s possible grounds for an appeal, or even a new trial: Lisa Bloom of The Bloom Firm, whose clients have included Janice Dickinson, Mischa Barton, and several victims of Jeffrey Epstein; Jesse Weber, a host and attorney at the Law & Crime network, who covered the trial from the courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia; and Mitra Ahouraian, an entertainment attorney in Beverly Hills who represents actors, directors, producers, and musicians.<\/p>\n Ms Bloom saw several appealable issues in the Depp v Heard verdict, beginning with the wording of the 2018 Washington Post<\/em> op-ed from which Mr Depp’s defamation claims stemmed.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause of the First Amendment, the precise words [of a given statement] are closely scrutinized, \u201dshe said. \u201cHere, Amber Heard said only that she was a public figure representing domestic violence. In my view, this means that if even she was a domestic violence victim even once, the statement is true, and the case is over. She did not have to win that she was a victim of multiple incidents, or even significant incidents. Just domestic violence of some kind. “<\/p>\n Ms Bloom highlighted the fact that Ms Heard “never even named” Mr Depp in the op-ed, which means “the appellate court may say the comment was not specific enough to overcome her First Amendment rights.”<\/p>\n One of the three statements in Mr Depp’s lawsuit is the op-ed’s headline, which is another potential issue in Ms Bloom’s view.<\/p>\n “[Ms Heard[] was found to have defamed him based on a headline that she did not write, but merely retweeted, \u201dshe said. \u201cThis verdict, if upheld, would cause major First Amendment problems for the millions of tweeps who RT articles all day long. Are they to be held liable for defamation if the article is inaccurate? “<\/p>\n Ms Bloom also saw possible problems in the ways in which jurors awarded damages: After they first announced they had a verdict, they were sent back, as it appeared they had omitted to award some or all of the necessary damages. They returned shortly afterwards having awarded Mr Depp $ 15m and Ms Heard $ 2m. (Judge Penney Azcarate adjusted the damages awarded to Mr Depp to conform to a state cap; he has actually been awarded $ 10.35m.)<\/p>\n The timing of how the damages were awarded, to Ms Bloom, \u201cseems very slapdash\u201d, and is an issue she would raise on appeal.<\/p>\n Mr Weber pointed to statements made by Ms Bredehoft in interviews after the trial in seeking to outline possible strategies for Ms Heard’s legal team.<\/p>\n “The arguments on appeal are focused on what Heard believes are incorrect legal rulings by the judge. That is why making objections and motions during the course of the trial is so important to preserve these issues for appeal, \u201dhe said.<\/p>\n “Based on Elaine Bredehoft’s comments after the verdict, it seems they will be focusing on evidence that was ‘suppressed’ at trial, such as medical records, and perhaps arguing prejudicial evidence from [Mr Depp] was allowed to be introduced. It also seems [Ms Heard\u2019s team] took issue with the fact that the UK ruling, where a judge found multiple instances of abuse by [Mr Depp]could not be presented to the jury. “<\/p>\n Mr Depp sued The Sun<\/em>‘s publishing company in 2018 over a headline which had called him a \u201cwife beater\u201d. A judge ruled against him in the UK case in 2020.<\/p>\n Ms Heard’s attorneys \u201ccould also argue there were problems with the jury instructions \/ jury form,\u201d Mr Weber added.<\/p>\n Ms Ahouraian underlined the fact that “an appellate judge does not retry the facts or question the jury’s verdict”. <\/p>\n \u201cAn appellate judge looks at whether there was a legal error that resulted in an unfair ruling, for example, if the judge made a serious mistake such as excluding evidence that was relevant,\u201d she said.<\/p>\nThe phrasing of Amber Heard’s op-ed<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Damages<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Possible evidentiary issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n