'No evidence': Amber Heard demands defamation case verdict against Johnny Depp be dismissed
Amber Heard's legal team had previously stated that they were unhappy with the verdict and will contest it in the near future, and they have. Heard's legal time filed a 43-page memorandum on Friday, July 1, arguing the verdict that she had defamed Johnny Depp was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the verdict be thrown out and the case is re-tried. The lawyers questioned the amount awarded to Heard's ex-husband and targeted one of the jurors claiming that about the eligibility.
In the extensive memorandum, the 'Aquaman' actress argued that Depp "proceeded solely on a defamation by implication theory, abandoning any claims that Ms. Heard’s statements were actually false." This court brief is signed by Elaine Bredehoft, Heard’s lead attorney, as per Courthouse News. In response, Ben Chew, Depp's lawyer, dismissed Heard's motion as "what we expected, just longer, no more substantive." The motion then went on to argue the amount that was awarded to Depp was excessive. Amber Heard's lawyers argued that Depp's legal broadened the parameters of the damages saying that Depp "represented to the court he would limit his damages to the period Dec. 18, 2018, through Nov. 2, 2020. Instead, the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' actor "continued to urge the jury to restore his reputation and legacy to his children as a result of Ms. Heard accusing Mr. Depp in May 2016 of domestic violence.”
The whole fiasco began with Amber Heard's 2018 op-ed which subliminally targeted Johnny Depp. According to the verdict, Heard defamed Depp in 3 sentences, one of them being the headline which she didn't write. The court brief argued that Heard "never even became aware of the headline until Mr. Depp filed the lawsuit against her," while she did tweet the article. Chief Judge Penney Azcarate wrote in jury instructions that, "merely linking to an article does not amount to republication but adding content to a linked article may constitute republication,” and the jury shall gauge “whether any added content was intended to reach a new audience.” In response, Heard's lawyers argued that the re-publication requires "editing and retransmitting the defamatory material or redistributing the material with the goal of reaching a new audience.”
Lawyers point out a faulty jury member
More than just arguing the $10 million award to Johnny Depp and denying Heard's involvement with the defamatory op-ed, the lawyers also pushed a jury member into court's investigation debating whether he improperly served on the jury. According to a court list, the juror's birthday was in 1945, but Juror 15, "was clearly born later than 1945. Publicly available information demonstrates that he appears to have been born in 1970. This discrepancy raises the question of whether Juror 15 actually received a summons for jury duty and was properly vetted by the court to serve on the jury.”
So, it seems like Johnny Depp is not completely out of the fire yet. There's a chance that Amber Heard's lawyers might re-open the case and drag both the actors back to court. On the other hand, Depp is facing another lawsuit back in Los Angeles brought on him by a location manager, Gregg 'Rocky' Brooks, a crew member of 'City of Lies'. The manager claims that Depp insulted him and repeatedly punched him. Both the parties will find each other in court on July 25, 2022.