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

[Cindizzi]

this is probably the sweetest "gig" those attorneys and team ever had. I am sure they are working hard but not your average case.

Ben Chew has represented Cher in several cases.

 

[Herat]

MOTION BY DEPP
MEMO IN SUPPORT OF

What the motion was asking was for a special jury instruction that they jury should NOT, as Heard's team suggested, take into consideration what "message" they will send to abuse victims in the public - that they will somehow send a message to abuse victims that they can never have enough proof, never enough pictures, or witnesses etc. They are not here to worry about curing all of society's ills. They are here about this small limited matter between two parties.

It was a long shot IMO but had to be filed simply to preserve the record so to speak. They objected and asked for a cure via a revised jury instruction about NOT listening to that part of the closing by Amber's team.

This really sounds to me as if the ACLU getting involved in this has really complicated the interpretation of the event of the posting of the op-ed. Their posting endorses her alleged grievance. Which appears to be entirely unsupported by any other testimony she and her counsel have presented.

So it is all false.

I think this is prejudicial against JD.

And ACLU should be having some very high-level board discussions about their reputation and their standards because they are in serious trouble at a time when we need to have responsible civil liberties leadership.

 

[Cindizzi]

Jury Scrutinizes the Headline of Amber Heard's Op-Ed as Deliberations Resume in Johnny Depp Defamation Case

A Virginia jury asked a judge on Tuesday to clarify what they need to consider to find whether the headline of Amber Heard's editorial defamed Johnny Depp.

lawandcrime.com

[ ]

Handed 37 pages of detailed instructions, the jury will be asked to look into three statements that Depp claims to be defamatory. The jury question only asked about the one contained in the headline.

The other two statements that Depp alleges to be defamatory are Heard’s depiction of herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse” and her assertion that she had the “rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

Rottenborn insists that those phrases hold true regardless of whether or not the jury credits Heard’s allegations against Depp, but Depp’s legal team claims that this argument is a fig leaf for the editorial’s true goal to smear him as a sexual assailant and a domestic abuser.

Heard acknowledged on the witness stand that she wrote the editorial with Depp in mind. Emails shown to the jury showed that an ACLU representative told the Postthat the editorial was about how Heard was “beaten up” by Depp.

 

[Herat]

Agree, looks so hot. And so bright it hurts my eyes. I have to have trees and greenery. But to each his own.

If it had a sigficant fence and a pool or soft surface, even fake grass, it would be a great place for a 8+ year old to be in during about 9 months of the year.

With a baby growing up, there are just so many hazards there, plus the constant sun exposure. There is no shade whatsoever in that graded dirt area.

 

[Cindizzi]

Pause the clock at 9 hours, 04 minutes, 23 seconds

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531740160206970885

 

[Chelly]

Oh GROAN! We gotta come back for continued deliberations tomorrow.

 

[Love Never Fails]

I’m disturbed. What is it that the jury cannot agree on? Thoughts?

Will there be a hung jury?

 

[Brooke]

Jury is done for the day, per Law & Crime network

 

[dyannaON]

Sighhhhh.
Hopefully just being a very thorough. Sweating.

 

[Luna20]

Jury Scrutinizes the Headline of Amber Heard's Op-Ed as Deliberations Resume in Johnny Depp Defamation Case

A Virginia jury asked a judge on Tuesday to clarify what they need to consider to find whether the headline of Amber Heard's editorial defamed Johnny Depp.

lawandcrime.com

[ ]

Handed 37 pages of detailed instructions, the jury will be asked to look into three statements that Depp claims to be defamatory. The jury question only asked about the one contained in the headline.

The other two statements that Depp alleges to be defamatory are Heard’s depiction of herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse” and her assertion that she had the “rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”

Rottenborn insists that those phrases hold true regardless of whether or not the jury credits Heard’s allegations against Depp, but Depp’s legal team claims that this argument is a fig leaf for the editorial’s true goal to smear him as a sexual assailant and a domestic abuser.

Heard acknowledged on the witness stand that she wrote the editorial with Depp in mind. Emails shown to the jury showed that an ACLU representative told the Postthat the editorial was about how Heard was “beaten up” by Depp.

Do you know who the parties are in the email exchange that the jury saw?

 

[they'll get you]

I personally don’t care for it for a primary home. It looks like an oversized hunting lodge which is fine for a second or third property.

All that extra room for those hanger-ons.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Well it looks like I didn't miss much today while I was away. I'm glad to hear the jury having questions though. Asking for clarity before coming to a decision is a very good thing.

I'll go out on a limb and predict the verdict comes in tomorrow, before lunch.

 

[turaj]

I would have expected them to object on this when they had the chance. An oversight?

Based on her denial I’m assuming that the law states you can’t file a motion once deliberations begin? If that is correct I’m surprised Chew would attempt it.

i think they realize the mistake and want to go "on the record".

 

[Herat]

I'm happy to see they are taking their due time to read, question, and follow the judge's instructions.

This really sounds to me as if the ACLU getting involved in this has really complicated the interpretation of the event of the posting of the op-ed. Their posting endorses her alleged grievance. Which appears to be entirely unsupported by any other testimony she and her counsel have presented.

So it is all false.

I think this is prejudicial against JD.

And ACLU should be having some very high-level board discussions about their reputation and their standards because they are in serious trouble at a time when we need to have responsible civil liberties leadership

Let's not also forget the Washington Post. They are almost conspirators in this defamation with ACLU for irresponsibly posting an editorial based on allegations that (IMHO) will be judged to be false and unsubstantiated.

They have a responsibility to not promote false statements that turn out to be part of an extortion attempt foisted on a man with substance abuse as a significant problem.

All in all, AH thought she could pick up a quick $50 million by getting a big agency (that she welched on) and a big newspaper (only too eager to grab a sensational piece) from her rich, but compromised ex-husband to participate in a fraudulent allegation of Sexual Abuse. ( IMHO, MOO)

 

[turaj]

All that extra room for those hanger-ons.

now that the JD $$ source is dried up I doubt if there will be too many "hanger ons"...maybe her sister...I think most will distance themselves from her and most already have.

 

[Luna20]

All that extra room for those hanger-ons.

But they won’t get to stay very long. Bye-bye gotta find some new friends…on repeat.

 

[Herat]

I’m disturbed. What is it that the jury cannot agree on? Thoughts?

Will there be a hung jury?

They have 42 statements to review as false or true. They have a lot of witness testimony that gets difficult to follow and embroiled in attorney micro-fights.

They are instructed to act on the case as presented by the plaintiff and defendant's evidence, not on their personal appeal.

I have no problem with them taking the time to review all the bits, and listen to each other, and come to a fair and balanced verdict on the large number of issues.

Then, they also have to come to agreement on the financial awards, if any.

Its really a lot more complicated than the ordinary murder case.

 

[Herat]

All that extra room for those hanger-ons.

It does look like a party place, to me. Add a mini-trailer park and a pool and you have a miniature Hicksville back yard.

 

[Colorado303]

It’s very confusing.

She says what their question is but sounds like shes answering a different question.

If Chew agreed I would think he understands it?

Yes. The question and answer struck me as bad news for team Depp, but the way Chew’s head was bobbing up and down signals he was happy w/the Judge’s response. I have to assume Chew’s far more on the ball than I am when it comes to understanding this stuff.

 

[turaj]

I’m disturbed. What is it that the jury cannot agree on? Thoughts?

Will there be a hung jury?

i don't think we can assume they are NOT agreeing on anything...but rather methodically going over each instruction and now deciding a $$ amount. That part could bring a wide range of opinions...probably more discussion that even guilty or not.