VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #11

[fred&edna]

They are asking if the title is the statement or does it mean the "whole op ed" because of the title. It's a jury instruction they are confused about. The judge is going to say that the statement is the headline, not the entire op-ed.

I haven't been happy the op-ed was broken up on those forms jmo

 

[fred&edna]

She is responsible for the whole dang op-ed... every word, every title, every every thing.

jmo

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531693144248442880

 

[tlcya]

I don't envy the jury. The instructions are difficult and multi part as to each count and allegation, for each of the two parties. I am glad they are asking questions. Tells me they are trying to deliberate carefully and weigh the instructions properly.

Whether they rule for JD or not as to his allegations, so long as they don't rule for Amber on hers. JD IMO has already won. We all have seen this trial. The court of public opinion is squarely behind him. So that is the most important win.

 

[Breathe]

Law&Crime Network Retweeted

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531693144248442880

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson
Cathy Russon
@cathyrusson
https://twitter.com/cathyrusson

JURY QUESTION in #JohnnyDepp v #AmberHeard: LISTEN

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't like that jury question. They wouldn't have that question if they were following "defamation by implication" for JD's claims.

 

[Warwick7]

I believe they all made up their minds before deliberation began. But you have to review forms and maybe review evidence so that your heart complies with your mind. They should be in unison for sure.

I understand there is always the chance of a rogue juror. I would be shocked if they are out longer than Wednesday. I believe they will find Depp was defamed and Amber lied from the beginning. She wanted his money and fame. Then she was out. What a scam.

Reminds me of a movie called Intolerable Cruelty. Lol!!!

 

[Luna20]

As soon as it came on the Judge said ‘Mr Chew I’m not ignoring you, but I’m denying the motion‘

I wonder what that can be at this stage?

 

[wasnt_me]

If they want to know if that statement is false, all they have to do is look at why she said she got the TRO. She NEVER said it was due to sexual violence. I don't believe she EVER publicly accused him of sexual violence until the Op-ed. I hope they know that.

 

[BUF]

How many jury questions during deliberations are about jury instructions…too many!

I find that answers to these questions are sometimes inadequate.

 

[Breathe]

Does it matter who (AH or the ACLU) wrote the title? TIA

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531696384721698816

 

[BadRx]

As soon as it came on the Judge said ‘Mr Chew I’m not ignoring you, but I’m denying the motion‘

I wonder what that can be at this stage?

She also said something like it was too late since it was already with the jury.

 

[Warwick7]

If they want to know if that statement is false, all they have to do is look at why she said she got the TRO. She NEVER said it was due to sexual violence. I don't believe she EVER publicly accused him of sexual violence until the Op-ed. I hope they know that.

However the question is in regards to #3 only.

They have different questions to answer while they deliberate.

 

[wasnt_me]

Does it matter who (AH or the ACLU) wrote the title? TIA

The ACLU wrote the whole article. WAPO wrote that title. AH took command of the WHOLE thing, both pieces when she republished it in her tweet, saying "Today, I published...."

It's false on many levels that I hope the jury sees. For one, she didn't get any public wrath when she spoke out against sexual violence because she never spoke out against sexual violence until the Op-ed.

 

[BUF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531696580427821056

 

[Kiranerys]

I don't like that jury question. They wouldn't have that question if they were following "defamation by implication" for JD's claims.

Me either, AH team made great pains to show that she didn't write that title

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

If the jury is asking a question regarding the jury form, does this suggest that they have finished deliberating and beginning to fill out their verdict forms? If that's the case, there could be a verdict rendered later today. JMO

 

[concernedmother]

If the jury is asking a question regarding the jury form, does this suggest that they have finished deliberating and beginning to fill out their verdict forms? If that's the case, they could be a verdict rendered later today. JMO

Sounds like it doesnt it?

 

[wasnt_me]

However the question is in regards to #3 only.

They have different questions to answer while they deliberate.

I don't know if they are deliberating or what they are doing, but if they don't use the rule to take the statements in context with the article as a whole, then they are not following the jury instructions. The judge should have told them to follow the jury instructions and NOT told them that the title was separate because that is against the instruction to take it in context with the article for defamation by implication. The lawyers should have objected to that.