Fairfax: A seven-person civil jury in Virginia will resume deliberations on Tuesday in Johnny Depp’s libel lawsuit against Amber Heard. What the jury believes will be very different from the public debate that has surrounded the high-profile proceedings. For six weeks, the testimony focused on the details of the alleged abuse that Heard says she suffered at the hands of Depp. Heard outlines more than a dozen specific instances where she says she was attacked by Depp.Also read – What lessons should we as a society learn from the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard case
Depp denies any physical or sexual abuse, and says Heard fabricated the claims to destroy Depp’s reputation. Legions of Depp’s online fans have focused on his belief that Heard has been untrue, and that this will determine the outcome. Also Read – Elon Musk-Amber Heard Threesome Report: All About The Rumors And Its Connection With The Johnny Depp Case
But the case itself is a defamation claim. Depp sues Heard for defamation — for $50 million — in Fairfax County Circuit Court. In a December 2018 op-ed she described herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse” in The Washington Post . Also Read – 5 Shocking Revelations in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Case, from Threesome with Elon Musk to Bed Defecation After Argument
Depp was never named in that article, but his lawyers say he was defamed nonetheless. Most articles discuss public policy as it relates to domestic violence, and Heard’s lawyers say they have a First Amendment right to weigh in.
In closing arguments, however, Depp’s attorney Camille Vasquez argued that there are limits to Heard’s free-speech rights. “The First Amendment does not protect lies that hurt and defame people,” she said.
Depp’s lawyers point to two passages in the article that say they explicitly mention Depp.
In the first passage, Hurd writes that “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath.” Depp’s lawyers call this an explicit reference to Depp, noting that Heard publicly accused him of domestic violence in 2016—two years before writing the article.
In a second passage, she says, “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” (Depp’s attorneys are seeking damages over a headline that appears above the online version of the article, even though Heard did not write it.)
The jury, which has to come to a unanimous decision, must decide whether those portions of the post are defamatory. And the decision form gives them step-by-step instructions on how to determine that.
Heard’s lawyers say they have presented a mountain of evidence that Heard was abused. But they say that even if the jury somehow believes that she was not abused even once, she should still win the trial.
This is because libel law lays out a number of factors that must be considered. First, the alleged defamatory statements must be about the plaintiff. Heard’s lawyers said the article was not about Depp at all. He is not mentioned, and he is said to focus on Heard’s experience about the aftermath of the speech. His lawyers argue that even though he was not abused, those statements are objectively true.
However, Depp’s lawyers say both passages are explicit references to Depp, noting that their 2016 divorce proceedings were publicized around.
Furthermore, because Depp is a public figure, Heard can only be found guilty of defamation if the jury decides that Heard acted with “actual malice,” which requires clear and convincing evidence that he Either she knew what she was writing was false or she acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Hurd’s lawyer J. Benjamin Rottenborn said during Friday’s closing arguments that Hurd carefully reviewed the draft of the article—the first draft was written not by him, but by the American Civil Liberties Union—to ensure that what was written was legal. passed by. , Rottenborn said that the mere fact was sufficient proof that he did not act out of genuine malice.
As far as the abuse is concerned, Depp’s lawyers have tried to suggest to the jury not to trust him if they think Heard is lying or embellishing any of his abuse claims. and all his claims of abuse should be dismissed as unreliable.
“You either believe all of it, or none of it,” Vasquez said. “Either she is the victim of ugly, horrific abuse, or she is a woman who is willing to say anything.”
In the conclusion of Heard, Rottenborn said that focusing on the evidence of Heard’s abuse ignores the fact that there is overwhelming evidence on her part and sends a dangerous message to domestic-violence victims.
“If you didn’t take the pictures, it didn’t happen,” Rottenborn said. “If you took pictures, they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends, they’re lying. If you told your friends, they’re part of the deception.”
And he rejected Vasquez’s suggestion that if the jury felt that Heard could embellish on a single act of abuse that they would have to disregard everything he said. He added that Depp’s defamation claim should fail if Heard suffered a single incident of abuse. “They’re trying to trick you into thinking Ember has to be perfect to win,” Rottenborn said.
$(document).ready(function(){ $('#commentbtn').on("click",function(){ (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=178196885542208"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
$(".cmntbox").toggle(); }); });
Originally published at Pen 18
No comments:
Post a Comment