VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #12

[katydid23]

you may know more than I do but I listened to the tape of EB on the morniig news show and I thought that she was not criticizing the judge or the jury per se= just stating that there was so much media and social media about the case that it would be almost be impossible for the jury to not hear some of the coverage because they were not sequestered- they were out in the world for evenings, weekends and a hiatus in the middle of the trial. IMO.

Here are her comments from the 1st morning interview:
While jurors were instructed not to read up on the court case or discuss it outside of the courtroom, she claims the trial’s online presence would have been impossible to ignore.

"How can you not? They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference. There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it. And it was horrible. It really, really was lopsided, I appreciate you saying that. It’s like the Roman Colosseum, you know, how they viewed this whole case. "

Here is what she said in the 2nd interview :

“I think that there were a lot of influences here that were beyond our control. I think the social media, it was like a Roman coliseum is the best way to describe the atmosphere here,” Bredehoft said, noting the negative posts toward Heard. “And I have to believe that the jury, even though they’re told not to go and look at anything, they have weekends. They have families. They have social media.”


To me, it sounds like she is accusing the jury of yielding to the temptation of social media. She says " even though they are told not to ..." That sounds accusatory, imo.

She is also saying that even though the jurors are watching 8 hours a day, hearing and seeing every word said in the trial, they are going to overhear a comment by someone on social media, and then vote Guilty because of that.


IMO, Elaine goes after the judge too :


"And that’s because she was demonized here. A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed. And it caused the jury to be confused. We weren’t allowed to tell them about the U.K. judgment, so the damages is completely skewed. There are no damages, it stopped at November 2, 2020, which is when the verdict came down in the U.K."


And it is BAD LEGAL judgement for her to keep comparing this case to the one in the UK. That case was against the SUN publication, not against Amber. So it is not fair, legally to compare the 2 verdicts. It is very different to accuse as publication of defamation because they just need to show that it is reasonable for them to believe Depp's ex wife.

But this case is about defamation by his ex wife. And it is not 'reasonable for her to believe there was abuse' if it never happened. Very different cases. And Elaine knows that.

Elaine also listed her reasons for it not being a fair trial and she kept discussing things that were suppressed. But those things were right to be suppressed. It was legally sound decisions by the judge.

 

[they'll get you]

'I Testified in the Heard vs. Depp Trial. The Backlash Has Been Horrific'

The comments below the YouTube videos of me have been vile.

www.newsweek.com

I went back and read this again.
Some things stood out.

So he hadnt even met her before that zoom meeting. jmo

Did they pick the wrong David Spiegel as there three higher qualified Psychiatrists with that name.

 

[squareandrabbet]

That was my immediate thought. It’s derogatory slander but she doesn’t have the emotional intelligence to know by releasing that statement she is setting up the jury for harm.

Jurors could lose their lives by an angry fan or a mentally unstable person. They should never be put in a situation like that. They deserve the protection they are promised. It’s up to them if they want to speak publicly.

The judge made it clear that she wasn’t going to release their names for a year. It’s bizarre how that went right over Elaines head, so much so that within hours after the verdict she accuses them of demonizing. There is something very wrong with that. It calls for disciplinary action.

Im convinced that she is unstable, her actions are erratic.

Oh, I’m sure that Elaine’s appearance-canceling appointment was before Judge Penny... After all, as we learned amply during the trial, Fridays are court business days.

you may know more than I do but I listened to the tape of EB on the morniig news show and I thought that she was not criticizing the judge or the jury per se= just stating that there was so much media and social media about the case that it would be almost be impossible for the jury to not hear some of the coverage because they were not sequestered- they were out in the world for evenings, weekends and a hiatus in the middle of the trial. IMO.

Here are her comments from the 1st morning interview:
While jurors were instructed not to read up on the court case or discuss it outside of the courtroom, she claims the trial’s online presence would have been impossible to ignore.

"How can you not? They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference. There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it. And it was horrible. It really, really was lopsided, I appreciate you saying that. It’s like the Roman Colosseum, you know, how they viewed this whole case. "

Here is what she said in the 2nd interview :

“I think that there were a lot of influences here that were beyond our control. I think the social media, it was like a Roman coliseum is the best way to describe the atmosphere here,” Bredehoft said, noting the negative posts toward Heard. “And I have to believe that the jury, even though they’re told not to go and look at anything, they have weekends. They have families. They have social media.”


To me, it sounds like she is accusing the jury of yielding to the temptation of social media. She says " even though they are told not to ..." That sounds accusatory, imo.

She is also saying that even though the jurors are watching 8 hours a day, hearing and seeing every word said in the trial, they are going to overhear a comment by someone on social media, and then vote Guilty because of that.


IMO, Elaine goes after the judge too :


"And that’s because she was demonized here. A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed. And it caused the jury to be confused. We weren’t allowed to tell them about the U.K. judgment, so the damages is completely skewed. There are no damages, it stopped at November 2, 2020, which is when the verdict came down in the U.K."


And it is BAD LEGAL judgement for her to keep comparing this case to the one in the UK. That case was against the SUN publication, not against Amber. So it is not fair, legally to compare the 2 verdicts. It is very different to accuse as publication of defamation because they just need to show that it is reasonable for them to believe Depp's ex wife.

But this case is about defamation by his ex wife. And it is not 'reasonable for her to believe there was abuse' if it never happened. Very different cases. And Elaine knows that.

Elaine also listed her reasons for it not being a fair trial and she kept discussing things that were suppressed. But those things were right to be suppressed. It was legally sound decisions by the judge.

Absolutely- more than one lawyer on YouTube has said, literally, “so Elaine is basically saying that the jury went home and spent all day every day they had off from the case, reading social media… And yet, it was AH‘s own counsel who brought in the hashtags; and AH herself, who literally went on the stand in testimony and said to the jury, arrogantly, “Google me”, to try and prove the point of some of her own testimony; thus the chances of Elaine being able to appeal successfully on these grounds are almost nil.”

the same lawyers also said basically there was nothing wrong with not sequestering the jury, that in this day and age making grown adults go 24/7 x 6 weeks with no cell phones, basically constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[they'll get you]

 

[squareandrabbet]

That’s a very interesting thought and for her it’s not an abstract one. AH is going to go after anyone that stands in her way. Lying definitely cost her the case but I also think her attorneys contributed to the loss some. It’s difficult going up against stellar representation though these 2 teams were worlds apart.

Setting the tone for Johnny started before he walked in. Ben and crew were in place with all of their tools so they could be 100% eyes on Johnny as soon as he stepped in. He was met with hugs and bows. In doing so they contributed significantly to Johnnys mental and emotional well being. Having that genuine support everyday goes a long way.

Elaine and friends were up and down, scurrying back and forth between each other and flipping through folders. I didnt see anyone pulling the chair out for Amber. The 3 of them had an off and on sense of panic throughout. Conciously or sub-consciously, its felt. So I can see her comparing the difference between her and Johnnys counsel and wanting to inflict wrath on Elaine.

To be fair, both of them started their opening arguments by verbally buttering up their clients… JD team had the longest row to hoe considering pre trial sentiment, clearly.

iIRC, it was something like ‘it is my very great pleasure to be representing Johnny Depp before this court and in this action”… which may, I grant, have resounded with me because I was pro-JD ahead of time; but again, it’s almost necessary to make it plain for the jury, that they have in fact chosen and are eager to make this uphill climb with him, just in case these jurors are more used to defendants who have been assigned public defense with no choice.

I think more and more info will be coming out now that the verdict went a certain way. I hope that those previously victimized by AH finally get the chance to tell their stories without fear of being sued by her now.

Look at this little nugget someone else found from 2016, a mere few weeks after that TRO:

Amber Heard rejects spousal support because it required mutual restraining order

I wish the jury had known about this before they listened to some of the audio clips... Though it seems that they in fact needed no more than the snippets Ben and Camille were allowed to play before the court…

which is in fact more impressive for JD and more damning for AH, because it means her very testimony was hostile and off-putting to them from the start.

Also, as an aside I keep meaning to add; the Travelers insurance VP who kept AH frequent company throughout the trial, is clearly there to monitor the company’s investment in AH, and to decide if it is in fact pouring good money after bad.

They definitely are not ‘pro-Amber’; they’re pro good investments.

If they thought her very testimony was lousy, IMO they might very well rescind her policy.

 

[Kiranerys]

I really wish someone would point out to EB that Amber was still on the stand and under oath,and was instructed by Judge Azcarate not to discuss the case with anyone or look at any outside sources when they went for the weeks break,yet AH returned to the stand and the first thing EB did was say they needed to clear up some mistakes re dates that she had testified to earlier.
Either AH or someone from her team gad clearly been on social media and realised that her lies and dates didn't add up and they literally had a do over in front of our very eyes and ears!.
I guess ignoring judges instructions is fine if you're AH or EB though.....

 

[Laughing]

So looking forward to this!

We saw the original movie on a Family Night at the Sacramento 6 Drive-In. A great movie for the drive-in, surrounded by happy little kids in pajamas.

I'm sure Johnny Depp would approve.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Aussieboy]

I really wish someone would point out to EB that Amber was still on the stand and under oath,and was instructed by Judge Azcarate not to discuss the case with anyone or look at any outside sources when they went for the weeks break,yet AH returned to the stand and the first thing EB did was say they needed to clear up some mistakes re dates that she had testified to earlier.
Either AH or someone from her team gad clearly been on social media and realised that her lies and dates didn't add up and they literally had a do over in front of our very eyes and ears!.
I guess ignoring judges instructions is fine if you're AH or EB though.....

If an appeal is granted it will be a waste of everyone's time, AH will just make up more outrageous lies to cover the previous ones. At the start of this trial, most people were neutral or in favor of AH because of the UK trial results but you don't hear EB mention that.

 

[Kiranerys]

If an appeal is granted it will be a waste of everyone's time, AH will just make up more outrageous lies to cover the previous ones. At the start of this trial, most people were neutral or in favor of AH because of the UK trial results but you don't hear EB mention that.

Yeah, there is one celebrity over here in the UK still banging the UK trial drum, saying that she formed her opinion by reading those transcripts at the time. She is doubling down on her social media about how she wouldn't wish JD on her worst enemy and berating veveryone for not believing AH, and how we are a disgrace etc and obviously don't care about victims of domestic violence.
I'm not sure if she has bothered herself with watching the trial and just ignored the obvious or if she is just willing to die on the UK hill, but its beyond frustrating.

I used to like her,she is on a show that I love to watch but I really have changed my opinion of her,she does not come across well.

If an appeal is granted are you allowed to introduce new evidence,or give new testimony or do the appeals judges just review the original case?

 

[Aussieboy]

If an appeal is granted are you allowed to introduce new evidence,or give new testimony or do the appeals judges just review the original case?

It doesn't look like they can bring in new evidence with an appeal, I'm not a lawyer so take it with a grain of salt.

​

https://www.americanbar.org/

Appeals

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal an alleged material error in the trial not just the fact that the losing party didn t like the verdict.

In a civil case, either party may appeal to a higher court. In a criminal case, only the defendant has a right to an appeal in most states. (Some states give the prosecution a limited right to appeal to determine certain points of law. These appeals usually occur before the actual trial begins. Appeals by the prosecution after a verdict are not normally allowed because of the prohibition in the U. S. Constitution against double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime.)

Criminal defendants convicted in state courts have a further safeguard. After using all of their rights of appeal on the state level, they may file a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts in an attempt to show that their federal constitutional rights were violated. The right of a federal review imposes the check of the federal courts on abuses that may occur in the state courts.

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

Appeal Procedure

The party appealing is called the appellant, or sometimes the petitioner. The other party is the appellee or the respondent. The appeal is instituted with the filing of a notice of appeal. This filing marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a brief, a written argument containing that side's view of the facts and the legal arguments upon which they rely in seeking a reversal of the trial court. The appellee then has a specified time to file an answering brief. The appellant may then file a second brief answering the appellee's brief.

Sometimes, appeals courts make their decision only on the basis of the written briefs. Sometimes, they hear oral arguments before deciding a case. Often the court will ask that the case be set for oral argument, or one of the parties will request oral argument. At oral argument, each side's attorney is given a relatively brief opportunity to argue the case to the court, and to answer questions posed by the judges. In the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, an hour is set for oral argument of most cases, which gives each side's lawyers about half an hour to make their oral argument and answer questions. In the federal courts of appeals, the attorneys are often allotted less time than that - 10- or 15-minute arguments are common.

The appellate court determines whether errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. It generally will reverse a trial court only for an error of law. Not every error of law, however, is cause for a reversal. Some are harmless errors that did not prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial. For example, in a criminal case a higher court may conclude that the trial judge gave a legally improper instruction to the jury, but if the mistake were minor and in the opinion of the appellate court had no bearing on the jury's finding, the appellate court may hold it a harmless error and let a guilty verdict stand. However, an error of law, such as admitting improper evidence, may be determined to be harmful and therefore reversible error.

After a case is orally argued or otherwise presented for judgment, the appeals court judges will meet in conference to discuss the case. Appellate courts often issue written decisions, particularly when the decision deals with a new interpretation of the law, establishes a new precedent, etc. At the conference, one judge will be designated to write an opinion. The opinion may go through several drafts before a majority of the court agrees with it. Judges disagreeing with the majority opinion may issue a dissenting opinion. Judges agreeing with the result of a majority decision but disagreeing with the majority's reasoning may file a concurring opinion. Occasionally the appeals court will simply issue an unsigned opinion. These are called per curiam (by the court).

If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction).

If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will usually send the case back to a lower court ( remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that

• a new trial be held,
• the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected,
• the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court.

In a civil case, an appeal doesn t ordinarily prevent the enforcement of the trial court's judgment. The winning party in the trial court may order the judgment executed. However, the appealing party can file an appeal or supersedeas bond. The filing of this bond will prevent, or stay, further action on the judgment until the appeal is over by guaranteeing that the appealing party will pay or perform the judgment if it is not reversed on appeal.

 

[zencompass]

Good morning @Cindizzi,

It was awful to hear that people have asked for the Court Reporter Judy to be removed from her position.

If E.B. made any written statements towards this, her position as an attorney could be in jeopardy. This is just my opinion.

I join others in commending the Law and Crime lawyers for bringing this information out and interviewing Judy!

There has been backlash against E.B.'s statements, of course, online.
More than one lawyer has spoken to E.B.'s interviews.

I have watched Bruce Rivers, criminal lawyer's views throughout the trial.

Mr. Rivers speaks to E.B.'s statements on the news in this video:

JMO

 

[turaj]

No she didn’t name them, she said that they were demonizing. It won’t take long for word to get out simply because the jurors friends and colleagues will discuss it. Also there is already one juror that has revealed himself. Supposedly they have spoken but I haven’t verified it. It was posted upthread.

If you are referring to the one who would not be on camera and spoke via tik tok etc. there are some commentators pointing out good reasons that may be a fraud....who knows....with the media craze not sure anyone will really want to come forward but those comments by EB may in fact make one or more jurors want to set the record straight. She is/was shocking all the way thru here.

 

[turaj]

I looked at my policy, too. It covers suits brought by negligence or unsafe conditions/code violations in my house that led to injury. It certainly does not cover malice defamation committed in Virginia.

That's a very weird insurance policy, if true.

i have not followed much on this insurance coverage discussion however anyone in her position would have had an "umbrella policy" which covers if someone sues you and this is a smart policy for anyone with a decent net worth. Now not sure if defamation is excluded but if not that could cover some of the payment

 

[turaj]

I definitely think she fueled his drug use. I also think it’s possible she was drugging him more. She had the drugs to do it.

the stress of life with Amber sure did not help his drug use but he has a long history...long before Amber. Could be part of the reason for the split with Vanessa. He will have a big challenge to avoid drugs and booze in the future years...his career re-start will depend on that.

 

[turaj]

Apparently Elaine cancelled her interview with Court TV. Maybe she read some of the horrible backlash she was getting on social media?

I assume the rest of her team put pressure on her to stop. It does not make them look good either. They have careers and if she wants to invest hers in the likes of AH probably they do not.

 

[turaj]

ITA. The look on Rottenborn's face was of extreme defeat and one could tell he was having a very hard time with the verdict. If he is smart, he will stay far away from her. MOO

I sort of liked ROTTENborn as JD called him. I am thinking he wants some serious distance away from AH.

 

[Teche]

Here are her comments from the 1st morning interview:
While jurors were instructed not to read up on the court case or discuss it outside of the courtroom, she claims the trial’s online presence would have been impossible to ignore.

"How can you not? They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference. There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it. And it was horrible. It really, really was lopsided, I appreciate you saying that. It’s like the Roman Colosseum, you know, how they viewed this whole case. "

Here is what she said in the 2nd interview :

“I think that there were a lot of influences here that were beyond our control. I think the social media, it was like a Roman coliseum is the best way to describe the atmosphere here,” Bredehoft said, noting the negative posts toward Heard. “And I have to believe that the jury, even though they’re told not to go and look at anything, they have weekends. They have families. They have social media.”


To me, it sounds like she is accusing the jury of yielding to the temptation of social media. She says " even though they are told not to ..." That sounds accusatory, imo.

She is also saying that even though the jurors are watching 8 hours a day, hearing and seeing every word said in the trial, they are going to overhear a comment by someone on social media, and then vote Guilty because of that.


IMO, Elaine goes after the judge too :


"And that’s because she was demonized here. A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed. And it caused the jury to be confused. We weren’t allowed to tell them about the U.K. judgment, so the damages is completely skewed. There are no damages, it stopped at November 2, 2020, which is when the verdict came down in the U.K."


And it is BAD LEGAL judgement for her to keep comparing this case to the one in the UK. That case was against the SUN publication, not against Amber. So it is not fair, legally to compare the 2 verdicts. It is very different to accuse as publication of defamation because they just need to show that it is reasonable for them to believe Depp's ex wife.

But this case is about defamation by his ex wife. And it is not 'reasonable for her to believe there was abuse' if it never happened. Very different cases. And Elaine knows that.

Elaine also listed her reasons for it not being a fair trial and she kept discussing things that were suppressed. But those things were right to be suppressed. It was legally sound decisions by the judge.

I imagine that EB’s comments will be reported to the powers that be.

 

[Brooke]

I really wish someone would point out to EB that Amber was still on the stand and under oath,and was instructed by Judge Azcarate not to discuss the case with anyone or look at any outside sources when they went for the weeks break,yet AH returned to the stand and the first thing EB did was say they needed to clear up some mistakes re dates that she had testified to earlier.

I guess ignoring judges instructions is fine if you're AH or EB though.....

RSBM..

Those instructions are JURY instructions, and apply ONLY to the jury, not to the plaintiff (JD) or the defendant (AH).

 

[Breathe]

Johnny Depp takes to stage with guitar legend Jeff Beck in Scotland

Johnny Depp, 58, has been in the UK to join Jeff Beck, 77, on his tour and previously made an appearance during his friend's gig at Sage Gateshead.

www.dailymail.co.uk

But Depp's set at the Royal Concert Hall was repeatedly interrupted with fans eager to voice their support.

They chanted, 'Johnny, Johnny', 'Innocent, Innocent' and 'Johnny Depp, Johnny Depp' with some Beck fans pleading with them to 'shut up'.

 

[Breathe]

Psychiatrist who said Johnny Depp exhibited 'narcissistic' traits on the stand says he has 'emotional concussion' from trial backlash

Expert witness in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation lawsuit explains why the backlash was so disturbing, says his WebMD page was flooded with negative comments.

www.yahoo.com

“I'm an adult, it's not the first time I've been criticized, but never like that,” he wrote. “On that Monday and Tuesday I had what I'd describe as an emotional concussion. It wasn't physical, I didn't get hit on the head, it was emotional because the feedback afterwards left me a little on the numb and dazed side.”