Johnny Depp.
Photo: Jim Watson/Paul/AFP/Getty Images
After Johnny Depp won the defamation case against Amber Heard in the United States, many questions were raised about the reasons why the actor lost a lawsuit against The Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom, but won against his ex-wife. in the United States. .
In 2020, the star of films such as “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Pirates of the Caribbean” lost a British defamation lawsuit against the tabloid after his ex-partner presented evidence to support the claim that he was a “beater wife”.
And just a few days ago, the Hollywood star won a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the actress after a Virginia jury ruled that an article she wrote for The Washington Post in 2018 was defamatory.
The court awarded Depp $15 million — which includes $10 million in damages and another $5 million in punitive damages — but the judge limited the total punitive damages to statutory limits, resulting in a total of $10.35 million. for this part, Heard received $2 million from her counterclaim against Depp.
Although a seven-person jury found Heard in favor of one count in his lawsuit against Depp, the actor called the decision an acquittal and his ex-wife described it as a “disappointment.”
Heard’s evidence was rejected by a jury in Virginia, Despite the fact that many, including legal experts, assumed that Depp had less chance of victory after his defeat in the United Kingdom.
Why did Johnny Depp lose in the UK and win in the US?
According to international media attorney Mark Stephens, The fact that the American case was presented to a juryWhile the UK trial was before a judge, Depp’s victory was very significant.
Speaking to the Guardian, Stevens revealed that Depp’s lawyers were able to “focus on Heard” in front of the jury.
Since the trial in the United States was by jury, it allowed Depp’s lawyers to focus on Heard. A tactic ruled out by a judge in the UK. The legal advocate said they deny that their client did anything, deny that he is the real culprit and attack the credibility of the person reporting the abuse and then deflect the role of victim and abuser.
Mark Stevens stated that the legal team at Heard also made a number of “tactical mistakes” that were outdone by a group of more experienced lawyers.lauded by social media users who followed the trial daily.
“Heard’s team wasn’t often libel lawyers and they were outselling them at every turn. They had a very strong team up against Depp,” Stephens said.
On the other hand, the competent lawyer referred to the use of social networks to “undermine Heard’s case” and enhance the role of the actor.
“What we witnessed in the United States in relation to this trial was a crushing case for Depp on social media. It is like an anti-hearing campaign.”
For example, on the TikTok platform, The hashtag #justiceforjohnnydepp has over 19 billion views During the six weeks in which the trial took place.
Speaking to The Guardian, Carter-Rock’s partner, Persephone Bridgman Baker, a defamation specialist, suggested that The jury simply validated Depp’s case.
“There seems to be no clearer explanation than that the jury simply believed Depp’s evidence in the US trial, or if the use of the Darvo strategy was accepted, the jury accepted it.” Persephone Bridgman-Becker said, “There was more evidence in the US proceedings about Heard’s credibility. , which the UK judge has given little weight: this was likely a deliberate strategic decision by Depp’s team.”
He added: “While the judge in the UK proceedings has determined that Heard was a credible witness, the additional evidence may have shaken the jury.”
After his victory, Depp said he was “really humbled” by the jury verdict, noting that the allegations had a “seismic effect” on his life and career. From the beginning, the aim of raising this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. Telling the truth was something I owed to my children and to all those who stood firm in their support for me. I feel at peace knowing that I have finally made it.”
For her part, Heard said she was “sad” because of the conclusion. The “Aquaman” actress asserted that the verdict “turns back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke out and criticized publicly could be humiliated and humiliated…I’m sad to lose this case. But what saddens me the most is that I really lost I thought I had as an American: the right to Speak freely and openly.
Read on: Amber Heard Can’t Push Johnny Depp’s Libel Verdict
– Johnny Depp won the Amber Heard trial revealed
– Johnny Depp’s Instagram account continues to gain followers after trial with Amber Heard
“Subtly charming bacon junkie. Infuriatingly humble beer trailblazer. Introvert. Evil reader. Hipster-friendly creator.”