VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #14

[ar3593]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1544437212158238722

Sit down Amber. You're just making yourself look foolish now. Move on and find deeper meaning to your life! Far be it to side with an insurance company, but Amber did this to herself. She is a malicious liar who is so delusional that she cannot see why people don't believe her.

MOO

 

[Laughing]

Heard's lawyers are grasping at this point..And in all that time the lawyers and their expensive associates didn't pick up on it?

Per the CODE OF VIRGINIA 8.01-353:

Section 8.01-353 - Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice, Va. Code § 8.01-353 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 8.01-353 - Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice, Va. Code § 8.01-353, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

A. The sheriff shall notify the jurors on the list, or such number of them as the judge may direct to appear in court on such day as the court may direct. Such notice shall be given a juror as provided by § 8.01-298.V erbal direction given by the judge, or at his direction, to a juror who has been given notice as hereinbefore provided that he appear at a later specified date, shall be a sufficient notice. Any notice given as provided herein shall have the effect of an order of court. No particular time in advance of the required appearance date shall be necessary for verbal notice hereunder, but the court may, in its discretion, excuse from service a juror who claims lack of sufficient notice. Upon request, the clerk or sheriff or other officer responsible for notifying jurors to appear in court for the trial of a case shall make available to all counsel of record in that case, a copy of the jury panel to be used for the trial of the case at least three full business days before the trial. Such copy of the jury panel shall show the name, age, address, occupation and employer of each person on the panel. Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.

Va. Code § 8.01-353

As always, JMOO!

Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.

The Commonwealth Has Spoken.

Thanks for finding this! Can someone post it on, oh, say, a parties Twitter?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Ricki]

Heard's lawyers are grasping at this point..And in all that time the lawyers and their expensive associates didn't pick up on it?

Per the CODE OF VIRGINIA 8.01-353:

Section 8.01-353 - Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice, Va. Code § 8.01-353 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 8.01-353 - Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice, Va. Code § 8.01-353, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

A. The sheriff shall notify the jurors on the list, or such number of them as the judge may direct to appear in court on such day as the court may direct. Such notice shall be given a juror as provided by § 8.01-298.V erbal direction given by the judge, or at his direction, to a juror who has been given notice as hereinbefore provided that he appear at a later specified date, shall be a sufficient notice. Any notice given as provided herein shall have the effect of an order of court. No particular time in advance of the required appearance date shall be necessary for verbal notice hereunder, but the court may, in its discretion, excuse from service a juror who claims lack of sufficient notice. Upon request, the clerk or sheriff or other officer responsible for notifying jurors to appear in court for the trial of a case shall make available to all counsel of record in that case, a copy of the jury panel to be used for the trial of the case at least three full business days before the trial. Such copy of the jury panel shall show the name, age, address, occupation and employer of each person on the panel. Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.

Va. Code § 8.01-353

As always, JMOO!

Elaine seems to be trying to change the the protocol to her advantage. Hmm Good luck with that.

 

[Cindizzi]

Insurance Company Sues Amber Heard to Keep from Paying for Johnny Depp Judgment and Legal Fees

An insurance company has sued Amber Heard in an effort to avoid paying ex-husband Johnny Depp's multi-million dollar defamation judgment against her.

lawandcrime.com

An insurance company is suing actress Amber Heard on a three-pronged request: (1) that it be absolved of any duty to pay for her defense in a recent defamation case by her ex-husband Johnny Depp, (2) that it not be required to pay the multi-million dollar judgment Depp won against her, and (3) that it not have to pay any costs of ongoing litigation associated with an appeal.

The New York Marine and General Insurance Company filed the suit against Heard on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. New York Marine insured Heard from July 18, 2018 through July 18, 2019 — a crucial time period for the defamation case. That time frame includes the date Heard wrote and retweeted a now-infamous Washington Post op-ed — a piece in which she claimed she was “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The headline discussed Heard “speaking up against sexual violence” and “facing our culture’s wrath.”

The period of time New York Marine insured Heard also includes the March 1, 2019 filing date of Depp’s defamation lawsuit. The suit was filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, because computer servers for The Washington Post are located there and because the paper’s printing plant is located Springfield, Virginia.

The insurance company’s suit claims Heard was covered by a $1 million insurance policy from July 2018 through July 2019.

[…]

Notably, Heard also had a homeowners insurance policy through Travelers Insurance at the time she wrote the Washington Post op-ed. In fact, a representative from Travelers Insurance was in court during the defamation trial each day, seated in the gallery behind Heard.

In a separate case filed last year, Travelers Insurance sued New York Marine for what the former company called the latter’s “failure to meet its obligation to provide [Heard] with independent counsel and other counsel necessary to defend [Heard].” The result of that alleged failure, according to Travelers, was that Travelers was unfairly forced to pay for its share of the defense. The judge in that case, which was also filed in the Central District of California, was asked to stay the proceedings for 65 days in May.

 

[Teche]

Wow, insurance companies suing.

 

[raja]

Was AH advised to get a $million dollar policy to cover her rear end if she was sued for the op-ed? An attorney probably told her not to do the op-ed and since you probably can't tell AH not to do something they then advised her to get a policy in case she was sued. JMHO

 

[Teche]

Was AH advised to get a $million dollar policy to cover her rear end if she was sued for the op-ed? An attorney probably told her not to do the op-ed and since you probably can't tell AH not to do something they then advised her to get a policy in case she was sued. JMHO

Why purchase a policy with low limits?

 

[concernedmother]

Was AH advised to get a $million dollar policy to cover her rear end if she was sued for the op-ed? An attorney probably told her not to do the op-ed and since you probably can't tell AH not to do something they then advised her to get a policy in case she was sued. JMHO

Well she purchased the policy then wrote the op-ed. She probably knew JD was going to sue her. Another way of knocking on the door wanting to fight. AH does what AH wants regardless of the consequences. She still cant stop the obsession she has of him. I guess fighting in court (her door) is one way since she will never see his eyes again. I think this girl has a fatal attraction going on. jmo.

 

[acutename]

Johnny Depp appears to address Amber Heard defamation trial in songs on new Jeff Beck album

Johnny Depp seems to sing about his ex-wife, Amber Heard, in tracks on upcoming album with Jeff Beck following his $10 million win in defamation trial.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1546410545116577792

 

[squareandrabbet]

Of course she does. What’s the words that can be used here? Nevermind…. can’t use ‘em. It’s all good though.

Leave it to Amber to recast a statement wherein the jury originally felt no clear compunction to offer her one red cent for her pains, into a determination of 'mutual defamation'.. barely, Amber. Barely.

 

[Breathe]

https://fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiff-mot-to-strike-7-11-2022.pdf

 

[concernedmother]

https://fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiff-mot-to-strike-7-11-2022.pdf

They knew there was a discrepancy and withheld that information. That's why EB wanted that jurors list sealed for a year. This was going to be their ace in the hole should they lose the case. JMO.

 

[Breathe]

Settlement between JD and Rocky Brooks

 

[ZoriahNZ]

JD's legal team's response is golden. I like to imagine this being read in Ben Chew's voice. Great rejoinder and glad they pointed out the unethical aspect of not objecting when it was appropriate to do so, but instead essentially withholding the info for a late Hail Mary.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp v heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiff-mot-to-strike-7-11-2022.pdf

"In a rare moment of candor, Ms Heard admits she was aware of the purported discrepancy from the very start of the trial"

As suspected, this is not grounds for a mistrial, especially since they had ample time and a duty to report the discrepancy. The initial mistake has no bearing on the case because the juror was fit to serve on the jury (qualified as eligible, regardless of the mix up).

 

[Cindizzi]

JD's legal team's response is golden. I like to imagine this being read in Ben Chew's voice. Great rejoinder and glad they pointed out the unethical aspect of not objecting when it was appropriate to do so, but instead essentially withholding the info for a late Hail Mary.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp v heard/cl-2019-2911-plaintiff-mot-to-strike-7-11-2022.pdf



As suspected, this is not grounds for a mistrial, especially since they had ample time and a duty to report the discrepancy. The initial mistake has no bearing on the case because the juror was fit to serve on the jury (qualified as eligible, regardless of the mix up).

I agree! Mr. BC did not hold back. I’m glad he also addressed AH and her team’s remarks about the Jurors in their press interviews:

 

[Cindizzi]

[…]


“A jury of Ms. Heard’s peers rendered a verdict against her in virtually all respects,” according to Depp’s filing, signed by his lead attorney Benjamin Chew. “Though understandably displeased with the outcome of the trial, Ms. Heard has identified no legitimate basis to set aside in any respect the jury’s decision.”
Asked for comment, Heard’s attorney Elaine Bredehoft described the memo by Depp’s legal team as “predictable” and said she found nothing surprising.

[…]

Depp fires back at Heard, asks court to uphold verdict

More than a month after a jury awarded damages in the defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, the two actors continue to battle over the verdict.

www.courthousenews.com

 

[tlcya]

They knew there was a discrepancy and withheld that information. That's why EB wanted that jurors list sealed for a year. This was going to be their ace in the hole should they lose the case. JMO.

agreed, her own motion admits they knew or should have known juror 15 was not the person listed on the panel documents. her own motion states "juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945" which differed from the information on the juror provided by the court. They had ample time to question the validity of that juror. They opted not too, rolling the dice to see if the verdict went their way or not.

 

[squareandrabbet]

agreed, her own motion admits they knew or should have known juror 15 was not the person listed on the panel documents. her own motion states "juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945" which differed from the information on the juror provided by the court. They had ample time to question the validity of that juror. They opted not too, rolling the dice to see if the verdict went their way or not.

Absolutely.

This juror went through appropriate voir dire, was questioned by both sides of counsel and evaluated by the clerk of the court; and the extreme likelihood that this person belongs to the same family as the summoned juror, in fact increases the likelihood that this was an accidental hiccup, as opposed to decreasing it... I mean, what sense does it make otherwise?

If they are father and son, and close enough to swap out, then they can also do any "tampering" they want to do in respect of the verdict, just by meeting each other for dinner at the end of the day.

I also saw someone opining that in their own individual jurisdiction, a social security card is adequate identification to brandish at the courthouse.

 

[deugirtni]

agreed, her own motion admits they knew or should have known juror 15 was not the person listed on the panel documents. her own motion states "juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945" which differed from the information on the juror provided by the court. They had ample time to question the validity of that juror. They opted not too, rolling the dice to see if the verdict went their way or not.

I'll bet if it'd been in reverse, where the younger man was called to serve, but instead the older man had shown up in his place, whom would also have been 'clearly born earlier than 1970', AH's team would've mentioned at the start, or not even have chosen that juror.

Do we know which juror it was that said his wife had texted him that JD was the abused one, and he'd responded that his wife exaggerates? I guess it wouldn't be a good thing if that happened to be the same juror in question? I'm sure if it was the same one however, AH's team would be screaming about it, even though that person was ultimately accepted anyway.