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

[wasnt_me]

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

No, they said it was jury instruction C, number 3.

 

[Herat]

I fail to understand how the title could be more significant than the text it holds.

For example: AH submits an op-ed titled: "Johnny Depp is a Sexual Abuser."

The ACLU changes the title to "I Love Kitty Cats"

And then AH go on to spill the kinds of unsupported, non-credible and defaming statements about SA that she spouted on the stand that were not credible, IMHO, and this text would not be part of the charge?

How can this give any support to someone's defense of defamation if that damaging text is to be ignored?

(Edited to be more specific)

 

[katydid23]

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.

I think Chew did object but the judge denied him?

 

[rebelchild]

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.

Ben Chew was shaking his head yes as the judge was stating how she was going to answer the question .. hopefully that is a good indication that his team was good with this answer. I don't understand any of it .. that's just what I noticed by watching.

 

[neesaki]

I find that question on the jury form confusing. I mean about the title (statement) being false. Ugh… I’m just confused.

 

[BadRx]

Ben Chew was shaking his head yes as the judge was stating how she was going to answer the question .. hopefully that is a good indication that his team was good with this answer. I don't understand any of it .. that's just what I noticed by watching.

Camille also said yes. I didn't hear Amber's side agree or not agree. But I could have missed it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Page FF of the instructions tells the jurors to consider the Op-ed as a WHOLE when considering if ANY of the statements are false. I think the judge messed up. JMO.

I hope the jurors see that and ask another question.

I'm assuming this 2019 link is right, and they just didn't update that link to say 2022. The instruction I'm talking about is page 15.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-jury-instructions.pdf

 

[neesaki]

I think the C of the instruction is very poorly worded, which is why it’s confusing.

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

 

[wasnt_me]

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

They're asking, though, if it's false and if they should look at the op-ed as a whole or just the title. And jury instructions FF, page 15 tells them for EACH statement they must consider the op-ed as a whole, not in parts. The judge was wrong.

 

[neesaki]

Page FF of the instructions tells the jurors to consider the Op-ed as a WHOLE when considering if ANY of the statements are false. I think the judge messed up. JMO.

I hope the jurors see that and ask another question.

I'm assuming this 2019 link is right, and they just didn't update that link to say 2022. The instruction I'm talking about is page 15.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-jury-instructions.pdf

Concerning isn’t it.

 

[Herat]

So they have only made it to Jury instruction C ( As in 1, 2, 3)?

That's a bit of progress, but not enough to finish today.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think Chew did object but the judge denied him?

No. He put a motion before the court that we don't know about and the judge said she isn't ignoring him, but she's either denying it or putting it off because the jury is already deliberating.

 

[tlcya]

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

not to me. Hopefully not to the jury. The title just parrots sentiments taken from the piece so whether she wrote headline or not, IMO she signed off on it as the author. By retweeting it with a direct link she took very public ownership of both the piece and the title assigned it.

So even if big bird wrote every single word of it, by retweeting and "claiming" it as hers, it's hers now. For better or for worse. MOO

 

[wasnt_me]

Concerning isn’t it.

VERY.

FF clearly says: that in order to determine if any of the statements in the op-ed are false, you must take the statements in the context of the op-ed as a whole.

So what is the op-ed, versus the op-ed as a whole? And what difference does that make if the statement IN QUESTION is the title? You must still consider it in the context of the op-ed as a whole, do you not?

How can the title NOT be part of the op-ed as a whole? What layperson reading it would EVER think it was not part of the op-ed?

In fact, what layperson would even read it if it wasn't announcing by implication that JD committed sexual violence on AH? I wouldn't bother reading further.

 

[kaos]

Did this "mock jury" read the entire op-ed and take the statements as a WHOLE with the article as required by jury instructions? I think these polls and mock juries are not doing that as the jury instructions require. In fact, I saw Nate did it with Joe Lawgic, and they did NOT even look at the op-ed once.

I didn't catch the start of where Nate came onto the channel, but I thought that it seemed as if they were taking them question by question and not as a whole.

 

[BUF]

Ben Chew was shaking his head yes as the judge was stating how she was going to answer the question .. hopefully that is a good indication that his team was good with this answer. I don't understand any of it .. that's just what I noticed by watching.

He did. Here’s the video again if anyone needs to watch

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

 

[wasnt_me]

I didn't catch the start of where Nate came onto the channel, but I thought that it seemed as if they were taking them question by question and not as a whole.

Yes, they took them question by question but they did not ever go back and put them in context with the op-ed.

 

[BUF]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531693808936624128

(video at link)

 

[steff13]

Her Mom passed away a few years ago but as far as I know her Dad is still alive. ?

Alive and pleaded guilty to running a dog fighting ring back in August. I don't know that I'd want him on my side.

Amber Heard's Dad Was Reportedly Jailed For Running 'Barbaric' Dog Fighting Ring In Texas

Amber Heard's dad, David Clinton Heard, ran an illegal dog fighting ring that led to his imprisonment, according to a new report.

okmagazine.com

 

[neesaki]

VERY.

FF clearly says: that in order to determine if any of the statements in the op-ed are false, you must take the statements in the context of the op-ed as a whole.

So what is the op-ed, versus the op-ed as a whole? And what difference does that make if the statement IN QUESTION is the title? You must still consider it in the context of the op-ed as a whole, do you not?

How can the title NOT be part of the op-ed as a whole? What layperson reading it would EVER think it was not part of the op-ed?

In fact, what layperson would even read it if it wasn't announcing by implication that JD committed sexual violence on AH? I wouldn't bother reading further.

Right. I couldn’t believe when I heard the judge say that. The instructions are so complex even she got confused. It’s not just that though, the wording is just bad. IMO