MEAWW.COM / NEWS / CELEBRITY NEWS

Did Elaine Bredehoft just begin Amber Heard's appeal? Lawyer's appearance on Today show shredded

Heard's attorney Elaine Bredehoft cited several factors that led to their loss, including evidentiary decisions and the influence of social media

Amber Heard's attorney has revealed that her client "absolutely" wants to appeal the jury decision that favored Johnny Depp, saying she has "some excellent grounds for it."

After deliberating over three days, the Virginia-based jury ruled in a unanimous decision that Heard, 36, defamed Depp, 58, when she called herself a victim of domestic abuse. She was ordered to pay $15 million in damages, including $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Heard compensatory damages of $2 million as she was defamed when Depp's lawyer Adam Waldman called her abuse allegations a hoax.

RELATED ARTICLES

From disbelief to rage: How the mainstream media covered Johnny Depp's victory over Amber Heard

'She can get a job at McDonald's': Amber Heard slammed after Megyn Kelly calls her 'UNEMPLOYABLE'

During an interview on Today, Heard's attorney Elaine Bredehoft cited several factors that led to the loss, including evidentiary decisions as well as the influence of social media. “Well, you know, really what happened here is it’s a tale of two trials. Johnny Depp brought a suit in the UK for the same case,” Elaine Bredehoft told host Savannah Guthrie, referring to Depp's 2020 libel case against The Sun.

“The burden of proof was easier for him there, The Sun had to actually prove that it was true," she continued. "And the court found there — and we weren’t allowed to tell the jury this — but the court found that Mr Depp had committed at least 12 acts of domestic violence, including sexual violence against Amber. So what did Depp’s team learn from this? Demonize Amber and suppress the evidence. We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case that was in the UK case. In the UK case when it came in, Amber won and Mr Depp lost.”

According to Bredehoft, Depp's team was able to squash key medical records. “They were able to suppress the medical records, which were very, very significant because they showed a pattern going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example,” she told Guthrie. “We had a significant amount of texts, including from Mr Depp’s assistants, saying when I told him, he kicked you, he cried, he is so sorry. That didn’t come in.”

The attorney was asked if her client would be able to pay the $10.4 million in damages to her ex-husband. “Oh, no, absolutely not," Bredehoft replied. However, she confirmed that Heard would appeal the decision and that she had "excellent grounds" for the same. “Oh, absolutely [she will appeal]. And she has some excellent grounds for it,” Bredehoft insisted. “We even had tried to get the UK judgment in his case because he [Depp] already had his shot — and that’s one of the issues but also a number of the evidentiary issues. There was so much evidence that did not come in.”

The lawyer was excoriated on social media shortly after the interview was published, with some accusing her of misrepresenting the UK trial.

"Ms Bredehoft is full of it. In the UK it was not the same case! Virginia judge already made that clear and bc of that they couldn't use it: NGN was sued for another article, Heard was only a witness, not a party & therefore she cherrypicked "evidence". And it was not a jury trial," one tweeted.

"Depp had less evidence in the UK as the judge wouldn't allow him to fully litigate Amber's evidence so she could cherry-pick what to produce. Justice Nicol also ignored every bit of his evidence and took Amber's word on the stand even tho it contradicted her previous testimony," another wrote.

"She has completely misstated the UK trial. That was against a paper, not Heard & although the burden of proof is higher, the Judge had less evidence, not more, for instance, he didn't have the benefit of the owner of the cabin saying it wasn't trashed & he wasn't angry," someone else offered