Making Sense of the Verdict (Depp v. Heard)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
The verdict is in! ☕️ Sign up for Morning Brew now! legaleagle.link/morningbrew
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Oh god, my editor misspelled “punitives” and I missed it. Crap. Lol.
☕ Seriously, sign up for Morning Brew now (it's the best)! legaleagle.link/morningbrew
🧢
No, you’re the best, Legal Eagle!!!
Like video
yeah thanks for giving me the only knowledge I bother to have on these topics
I signed up, and I'm a long time suscriber. Can I get a thumbs up?
"How can they both defame each other?" Someone's never went through a nasty break up before
The thing that makes the Depp-to-Heard defamation weird is that it was statements made by Depp's _lawyer_ that were defamatory. Usually to have a liable connection, a statement has to be made by an _employee_ of someone, not their contracted lawyer.
The jury likely didn't know that, and also likely had a hold-out for Amber and they simply made a deal in deliberation (not too uncommon), or at least still thought a _likely true_ scenario is still defamatory when said with little evidence to assert the narrative and said with such vitriol.
(edit: seems the spilt wine picture showed up _after_ the cops left, so the literal statement "they spilled some wine and roughed up the place and called the cops back in" _was_ factually wrong)
In any dispute between two or more parties it is possible for only one of them to be right. However, it is possible - and I daresay common - for both to be wrong.
It was a compromise. There was likely a holdout juror and they just gave amber that one count to throw that one juror a bone so they could all get this over with and go home
The confusion for people that didn't follow the whole thing is understandable. To someone not paying attention think of this way: Depp won in saying that Amber lied about him being an abuser. Amber also won because Depp claimed that amber was lying about her abuse. See the contradiction? That is why it's clear that people who are confused about the conflicting verdicts actually have not even followed the trial even a little bit, they just know that both sides won on defamation, but what claims or what was brought into evidence is something they are wilfully ignorant about.
So is this basically the case: Jury decided Amber had defamed Depp. But they also decided that although there wasn't sufficient evidence that Depp had abused Amber, they awarded her 2 million as there wasn't sufficient evidence to show that Johnny or somebody else never abused Amber? Is that the case?
"Actual malice," which doesn't really mean malice, vs. "spirit of malice," which means malice. Gotta love the law.
Actual malice means "Malice in the act (or fact) of", while spirit of malice means "malice in the intent of". A statement being malicious in act without a spirit of malice requires, unsurprisingly, reckless disregard.
@@7LegSpiders Proper language is whatever configuration of words that get your point across. The only people for whom legal language is proper are those in the legal profession
I'm a non english native and this thread makes my brain hurt. took me few minutes to process it.
@@evitanigaminU Everyone says that until they need a lawyer.
Laws are written in words, but are subject to interpretation. Having well-defined ways to understand the meaning of words prevents judges and juries from just arbitrarily deciding what those words mean. You also don't want a law to suddenly change because we redefined what words mean in the 75 years since that law was passed. As such, having a "legal language" that has far fewer vagaries compared to vernacular language is a *good* thing.
Though it does mean that you need an entire profession built around understanding that language...
Well, that’s literal malice. This is actual malice. Duh doy! Lol
You have no idea how many times I’ve had to explain to people that this wasn’t a criminal trial and no one is going to jail.. Also that the statutory max for punitive in Virginia is 350k so he actually isn’t getting 5 million in punitive damages.
> ... getting 5*k* in punitive damages
You mean 5 million?
@@emmi2670 😂 That is 100 percent what I meant. I’m just a sleep deprived law student who was up all night NOT procrastinating if anyone asks. Thanks for catching that!
@Bizzram ✓ I’m just a law student and not yet a licensed attorney, but I’m willing to bet if you asked Legal Eagle that he’d say, “it depends.”
@Bizzram ✓ If you can prove it. And that's expensive.
0 times, you've had to explain it 0 times...but you've probably felt like correcting people many many times.
Are there any legal repercussions for being caught lying in court multiple times? I don’t quite understand perjury in regards to this case
Not I believe in a civil case.
Perjury is a tough conviction, trials are expensive and it's kind of pointless because she didn't gain anything. It's rarely pursued unless the case is very serious and criminal: national security, government corruption, racketeering. It can be used as a threat, if a DA wants a reluctant witness to take the stand or pressure a victim to press charges, sometimes slips in testimony will give this kind of leverage. This last practice is obviously looked down on as counter-productive in the long run as it degrades the justice system in the eyes of the public.
Perjury is a criminal matter, not a civil one. The jury can definitively side with the plaintiff or not because the burden of proof is lower, but it is also not high enough to say the other side is "lying." If being 51% sure someone was telling the truth meant you could persecute the other side for lying, it would be absolute havoc.
Perjury in US courts is almost invariably a political prosecution, as are most process crimes related to lying. The exception to the rule would have been the Sussman prosecution, except his lawyers argued in court that since the top brass of the FBI knew the entire time that he was working directly for Clinton and still opened an investigation into Trump that his lies about that could not be considered material.
I’ve heard that generally perjury charges are avoided when domestic violence is involved to avoid deterring people from coming forward about DV. I wonder if Legal Eagle can confirm.
"People are liable in a civil case, they are not guilty" We know that because of the Spongebob video, obviously.
What Ep?
@@slayerfox2 The one with Plankton suing Krabs over slipping in the Krusty Krab.
Link?
I love a spongebob reference 😍
@@user-cq1cw8xz7f Just search for "legal eagle SpongeBob" and it should appear.
While the article doesn't state his name, she testified that the article was about JD. Probably to the dismay of her lawyers.
No, that doesn’t actually change anything. The problem was not that she wrote it with Johnny in mind. The problem is that even without naming him, the public can conclude that it was Johnny and that she intended for them to make that conclusion. Her admitting it was about him does not change anything, unless her defense was proving that it was about a different abusive man in her life and not Johnny. It’s still defamation by implication.
AND the drafts actually referenced him more directly AND the pitch to Washington Post specifically said "as you know she was beaten by her ex husband Johnny Depp" AND Articles from publications like USA Today immediately declared it was about him and she didn't correct them AND there are ACLU emails being a little too pleased that her op-ed was getting traction for the implicit connections AND so on and do forth
@@daffodil852 you see since the article was undoubtedly defamatory her admitting it was about johnny basically seals the deal.
@@daffodil852 that was the defense though they kept saying it was not about him.
@@daffodil852 I mean from what I can tell, large swathes of the verdict simply ignored reality. I mean the actual headline of the article said "I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced our culture’s wrath". Whether Heard lied about any sexual violence is irrelevant, because the headline is a statement of fact. She did speak up against it, and did face the wrath of our culture towards women who do so. Yet the jury found that defamed Depp, despite the fact the title of the article was not in any way to do with him.
The fact that people cant understand that two people can both make untrue and damaging statements against each other is kind of... its telling of how we handle conflict as a society...
Trust me this fact will never be remembered with this lawsuit, social media follows such a dumb wave sometimes
Postmodern philosophy has pretty well pushed us to this point where once someone is labelled a victim, they are no longer thought of as fallible.
The fact you think both sides of this case are remotely equal in truth or lies is very telling of how we seek to inform ourselves before speaking as a society.
@@slickspidey
Why would it be? Did you watch the trial? She was guilty as sin and they had nothing on him as far as defamation charges outside of a minor error of semantics in one of his former attorney’s statements. What I don’t understand is why people who are so clearly ignorant of the details believe they have ground to stand on in providing their thoughtful social commentary.
a disgusting filthy fence sitter coward pretending both sides are as bad as each other. Amber cut off part of Depps finger. Depp never laid a glove on Amber.
You brought up an interesting video idea that I'd really like to see: What counts as precedence? Not just that jury trials generally don't contribute (there's exceptions), but which jurists' opinions are given more weight than others and why
There are lots of reasons why a jurist's opinion may be considered particularly important. Apart from seniority, they may be considered a specialist in a certain area of law, a persuasive exponent of a particular school of jurisprudence, or just a very good legal writer.
But yeah, I'd be interested in seeing a long-form discussion on precedent too. I think lots of people would be interested in it.
I would also like to see this video
To my understanding, First of all, a clear difference must be made between 'binding' precedent and 'persuasive' precedent.
Generally, a court is only bound (i.e. it MUST be followed) by the precedent made by the same court in a previous decision or a higher court in its hierarchy. For example, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York is bound by its own previous decisions, as well as the decisions of the courts above it in its hierarchy, that is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court. In theory, only precedents coming from these courts may be binding.
Other judicial decisions may be considered 'persuasive'. So in the previous example, the US District Court in New York is not technically bound by the decisions of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in the west coast), but it may chose to follow it anyway, especially if the decision was well-reasoned. Those decisions are 'persuasive' but not binding.
Courts may also overrule its own past decisions, but generally that is done very rarely, and only with very good reason.
It also depends on the law being applied. According to the Erie Doctrine, when interpreting state law, state court decisions are also binding on federal courts. Returning to our previous example, if the US District Court in New York is applying say, New York State Law, then it is also bound by the interpretations of state law made by the state courts.
(Please correct me if i'm wrong, I'm a law student, but not in the US, what I know comes only from what I read by myself)
EDIT: I've been informed that the decisions of the first level courts (such as the federal district courts) are always only persuasive, but never binding.
@@raushanaljufri You seem to be well spoken and on your way. I hope you succeed in your career as an attorney, or whichever one you choose!
Sometimes they are given more weight because they're really good writers with very succinct analysis. Like Learned Hand. I have heard a lot of law school professors saying he should have been on the Supreme Court if it weren't for some scandal or something. Maybe an interesting thing to look into for a history channel. I don't know the details.
She also admitted in her testimony to writing the oped about Johnny Depp. So the jury didn't even need to assume the story referred to him.
Which was hilarious because at first she tried to claim that she didn’t write the oped and also that it didn’t have anything to due with Depp.
Funny how the truth sometimes just comes out.
@@MrShitthead Honestly, if Heard simply stuck to the game plan, she could have easily won. Did she speak out? Yes. Did she get backlash? Yes. Was she in a position where she could observe the power dynamics of men and women as a representative of domestic violence? Well, regardless of whether she actually WAS a DV victim, she was certainly portrayed as a rep for the cause and was embroiled in such controversy, so that was technically true.
Now... did she write the article about Johnny? His name wasn't in it, so there's plausible deniability. All she had to do was not admit it was about Johnny.
But she just. Couldn't. Help herself. Instead of just sticking to the literal wording of her article, she HAD to make it abundantly clear that everything was about Johnny, and in doing so HAD to insist she was a real DV survivor, and HAD to dramatize every incident far beyond plausibility or available evidence. And thus.
@@Tenchigumi also if she kept the claims of abuse minimal: rough grabbing, demeaning words, threats of violence, etc, she absolutely could have won. But she had to embellish, heighten, and exaggerate what purportedly happened that her photographic evidence in no way supported her claims.
Like, the being punched by Depp (who was wearing a fist full of heavy rings) so many times she lost count, but her picture showed only the amount of bruising she’d have gotten from a botox injection.
In this context the point needed to be the readers were likely to know who was being refered to, not who the writer had in mind.
@@Tenchigumi I hate the notion that men have more power in a case of domestic violence. Men are often ridiculed when they do come forward with claims of abuse. When a male victim calls the police on their female abuser the man is still more likely to go to jail. Men have less power than women when it comes to domestic violence.
I would love to hear your opinion on Amber’s lawyer’s statements she’s made in the press about the decision
SAME!!
Me too! It is unethical and perpetuating the defamation.
I wonder if Elaine actually believes Amber. She almost sounds like she does.
👀
Amber's lawyers are being incredibly unprofessional in their interviews, which is not a surprise considering they were incredibly unprofessional in the court room.
"How can they both have defamed each other?"
Well, I would hazard a guess to say that it's probably because they defamed each other.
r/technicallythetruth moment
Simple lesson: avoid people like these at any cost . . . .
Though technically it was his lawyer that defamed her.
And because they obviously abused each other! I’ll be shocked if he actually never ever abused her
@@ikexbankai Then watch the trial because everyone who watched the trial, not just the juries, concluded that he never abused her.
It is crazy to think how this would have been a much different process if either of them had brought criminal charges; it s surreal that this is all about defamation. But people instead understand this to be a trial about abuse. Could we have avoided all defamation charges altogether if these people weren't rich celebrities?
In the United States, a person can't bring criminal charges. Only the state (the government, from your local DA or an AUSA for the federal government) prosecutes crimes.
Fun fact, if it had been a criminal trial, a lot of the evidence that utterly destroyed heard's credibility (I have a strong suspicion that the donate/pledge thing would have been blocked) wouldn't have been allowed at all. It would have been a very different trial.
@@TheBrothergreen some would have been bbut not others, we will never now
If these people weren't celebrities then WaPo wouldn't have published the op ed in the first place.
@@TheBrothergreen Heard already won her case about whether or not Depp abused her. 12 out of her 14 counts against Depp were proven in a court of law.
Limiting the amount of punitive damages to a set value sounds like a law written by a very rich guy.
To be sure.
If you make sure that punitive damages are capped, rich people can ignore that slap on the wrist.
Any amount of fine or equivalent has to be scaled to the resources of the person offending to have any meaningful deterrent effect.
Agreed. Since to a rich person 350K can be a drop in the bucket, but to a normal person people have declared medical bankruptcy for less. In Norway and Finland for example speeding tickets are scaled to your level of income although Norway it's a flat 10% of your annual income for speeding tickets/if you make 10 million a year you're paying a million on a speeding ticket. It's less in Finland though.
@@dstreetz91 Yeah, on the Åland Islands (Finland) its a big thing in the paper each time the richest man on the island gets caught speeding.
Huuuuge fines, scaled to his insanely large income. Good for the local economy every time though, I suppose 💰
@@dstreetz91 Yea any law with a fixed fine doesn't make doing it illegal, it just puts it at a cost.
I do feel the need to point out that the whole point of sueing someone is to make them pay for their wrongful acts, meaning that the whole punitive damages system to punish someone for their wrongful acts seems rather redundant. Also fun fact, this limit was created in 1987 which, counting for inflation, means that the intended limit was around $897,597.41 in today's dollars, which is a bit more reasonable and would actually hurt some upperclass people. Still, these laws really need to be updated to account for inflation.
I just want to say that Amber said under oath "the article I wrote about Johny [...]" She said very clearly that the article WAS about Johny
The discussion was if she is liable when she did not claim it was about him, before the trial. On trial she had to disclose off course, but that admission has no value in determining the damage she has caused.
@@CobisTaba well thats just not true. Also as the verdict form describes all it has to do is be obvious to somebody who isn't Johhny Depp that it's about him whether mentioned or not. There isn't a rational person with any knowledge of Johhny Depp being married to Amber heard that would interpret it as being about him hence it counts.
and that she wrote it 2 out of the 3 fact that the Johnny team needed to prove
@@45heisman that is not what I said. You misread me. I said her testimony itself did not damage him. The article did
I also recall her saying " it's not just about Johnny" when being crossed by Camille
This is an exemplary short summary of the US proceedings. I'd add only 3 short points.
(1) In closing, Ms. Heard's lawyers pointed out that the police visits were mere minutes apart, so that there was not time for the consultation and evidence-fabricating alleged by Waldman. It is therefore not surprising that the jury ruled in her favour on that point, even if more generally they found against Ms. Heard on the issue of 'hoaxes'. If anything, this shows diligence, attention to detail, and a desire to do even-handed justice on the jury's part.
(2) The references to evidence suppression by Ms. Heard's lawyers are remarkable given the number and scope of evidence applications in the UK trial (4 or 5 by my count). More accurately, the UK trial involved different defendants and a different set of rules of evidence. What was admitted or excluded in each case was therefore also different.
(3) It was notable that Ms. Heard's lawyers did not rely on sexual abuse in closing. This suggests to me that they did not think that Ms. Heard had come up to proof on that point. The sting of the innuendo in the title of Ms. Heard's article was that she was a victim of sexual violence - the violator being Mr. Depp - so that omission on closing was quite significant.
"Sexual violence" does not necessarily mean a sexual intercourse type of violence. It could be a reference to violence against women or violence unique to the circumstance of being a woman in society. People are making too many inferences, including the fact that the article itself is "about" Depp. Yes, Depp could have been the source of the violence about which Heard spoke up. However, the article is specifically about the negative public treatment Heard suffered after having spoken out. Thus, it's not actually about Depp. It's about society.
@@quentinj7236 Your argument might be more convincing were it not for the fact that the Court held more than once that the article was capable of bearing the defamatory meanings that Depp alleged and pleaded. Whether the article - specifically referred to in those pleadings as the "sexual violence" op-ed - actually bore those meanings then became a matter of fact for the jury, which found that they did.
@@quentinj7236 Also, if she *wasn't* trying to imply it against depp, it would be very easy to specify he wasn't someone who hurt her. That lack of specificity IS implying it. If I just broke up with a woman, got a restraining order, and I say "I've been a victim of abuse by an intimate partner," who are people immediately going to look at? However I could have said "I've been the victim of abuse by an intimate partner, not X, but in previous relationship(s)." Not hard to exclude someone you don't want to make the implication against.
@@upasiensis If you've read her article, please give me the fact or claim she explicitly made in the article that is false. The statement or claim being false is the first requirement under the legal definition of defamation.
Judges can be wrong in their rulings and juries can be wrong in their verdicts. This jury didn't even properly assign a monetary amount when they initially thought they were finished. The judge had to send them back to do so.
We'll see what other judges conclude on appeal.
@@quentinj7236 The three statements that the jury found were untrue, implied a defamatory meaning about mr depp and were done with a higher than necessary standard for actual malice and awarded significant punative damages.
Those ones.
"It's capped at 350,000 in Virginia ... The jury wouldn't have known that"
Wait... but I know that now...
What happens if I know that now?
nothing
I think that means if you are called to participate in a civil trail in Virgina you'd be obliged to disclose it in the little 'addtional' box on your intake paperwork? But, I'm not a lawyer, so you should really not take my word for it and ask one. I feel like if Legal Eagle has taught us all anything, its that... and at least a dozen other things, but all of them are very important. :)
God d̷a̷m̵n̷ i̶̭͠t̸̘̀, y̸̟͌o̴͝ͅu̴̥͝'̷̗̂v̸̻̓ě̴͙ ḑ̴̛̪̣̬ö̶̟͇́͐̾͆o̷̢̯̿m̷̢̗̠͐e̷̞̪̱̽d̸͖̬̗̍̐̇͘ u̵̗̼̣͚͔͍̞̻̓̀̌͂̉s̵͙̖͉̺̺͚͛͂̉͛̿̏̇͂a̵̧̤̗̠̽͐̄̃̓̏͒̓͌̈̌͛̽̎l̵̩̘̲͎̖͎̲̘̐̒̽̔̃ͅl̸̨̢̹̥̦͚͕̮̞̪͈̈́̅!̸̧̡̹̞̩͈̰͍̭̏̓̂͂̀̃̊̐͐̃͛́̚
Now that you know it, you might be ineligible or at least less likely to be chosen for jury duty in civil cases tried in Virginia
Yeah that really doesn't make any sense. The state caps punitive damages, but doesn't disclose that because it thinks it will bias the jury from awarding said damages on account that they are deemed too low? Huh. Also It's the state law, which you are expected to know, so how on Earth would that be grounds for dismissal from a jury? Ridiculous! That in itself seems unconstitutional.
Edited to add: this is specifically about the decision on Amber Heard's counterclaim that 1 statement by Waldman was defamatory.
I watched big chunks of this case, I'm pretty sure that police testified there was only one 911 call but a second pair of officers responded. The second pair of officers also testified that nothing was wrong and body cam footage showed no evidence that the place had been "roughed up." I also never heard evidence that a publicist or lawyer helped them plan that event.
I might be remembering incorrectly or missed a moment that supports the statement, but that is my recollection.
My guess as a layperson is that the specificity of the statement, and lack of evidence for such specifics, was what caused the jury to decide it was defamatory.
She made claims that were easily disproven. It is that's simple.
Thanks for the info. Makes sense to me.
@@jwatson181 the commenter is referring to the section b that got amber awarded 2 million, meaning in this specific point she didn’t not make any false claims.
Almost got it right just backwards, there was 2 calls but only 1 team responded.
@@HumanTypewriter there was also no smell of wine and the place wasn't roughed up. Makes you wonder why waldman said that
So what is “the penalty of perjury?” Because it seems like lying under oath is perfectly acceptable since no one gets penalized.
I've seen evidence of that first hand. I went to the police, mentioned it to members of the ACLU when I was with them, I told just about everybody I could and got nowhere. The perjury among other laws broken were done so by my ex-wife.
Lawmakers picking and choosing which laws to apply and when obviously.
Discretion. It's not worth their time. Truly, it isn't.
Perjury is a CRIME. To prove a crime juries must find the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil Lawsuits only need to be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. A far lessor standard. A Prosecutor would have to retry the case and try to Prove that someone Flat out lied on the stand, not probably lied.
@@cheyenneb3088 Of course it is. This was broadcast worldwide. Getting the word out you can lie with impunity on the stand without consequence will not redound to the benefit of society.
I've consumed an unhealthy amount of media about this trial and your reactions so far are my favourite. You could've easily sided with JD and take the slanderous way out by heaping on insult towards AH's legal team but you didn't. I remember in your last video you reacted to the video of AH's lawyer who was cross examining the JD's caretaker witness. The lawyer blurted an objection against what the witness said when it was him who asked the question. All of the other lawyer reacts videos that I have watched were quick to point out how ridiculous that move was, however, you simply said that that was not entirely stupid, that that does happen in court, and that these lawyers are also humans who make mistakes.
Even in this video, you could've easily made a video roasting AH and her legal team for how bad their performance was in this trial. Especially since this was filmed after the verdict was handed down. You could've easily gained more views by piling on the insult, but you didn't. You just handed down the fact of the matter.
Thank you for that!
Shame that Amber's side didn't hand down much in the way of facts. Heck, Amber managed to contradict herself within moments on several occassions during it too.
Agreed. Leave the insults and the comedy to SNL and the likes. If we are coming here we want the facts with minimum bias to help inform our own opinion and understanding.
"thank you for being neutral in a right or wrong case"
yeah much thanks smfh
@@Truth4thetrue Yes, he should have sided more with Amber heard smh
@@cheesedtomeetyou8007 ok simp
Infuriating, especially in the wake of the Rittenhouse trial, how most people think jury verdicts determine precedent when it is in fact published legal opinions that do!
One thing I have seen people misunderstanding, an appeal does not mean a new jury trial. An appeal is asking a higher court to review certain aspects of the trail as they pertain to the law. A case can be overturned on appeal, or any number of things, but a higher court is not just going to say the jury reached the wrong verdict. It has to be based in the law.
Ideally this would be true, but tell that the Georgia state supreme court. They seem to have a penchant for overturning murder cases based on their own interpretation of the evidence, not for any legal reason, effectively saying "Even though the jury thinks the evidence was good enough, we don't".
@@jermainerace4156 criminal law and appeals are very different from civil law. However I cannot speak too much on Georgia jurisprudence.
@@jermainerace4156 Considering that there is far too much emphasis placed on rules and procedures and very little on circumstance or emotion, maybe what the GA SC is doing is not such a bad thing. Unless they're just overturning the convictions of white guys.
@@BayAreaJaybo don't worry, we'll get you on appeal
Yes, but "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence presented" is a legal conclusion, which is another way of saying "the jury reached the wrong verdict." In other words, the appellate court won't make its own credibility determinations, but it can consider whether the evidence was sufficient to find defamation. And here, I would be incredibly upset if they don't overturn the verdict against Heard, because no reasonable juror could find that any of the three statements constitute defamation, even if it's true that Heard never abused her. The article just was not defamatory, as a matter of law.
Something I'd love to see covered is types of juries and how a jury is selected in each separate case. I thought there was only one kind, the sequestered jury until I found out a few days ago.
INAL but it's a great rabbit hole! Civil juries, criminal juries, and sequestration is a rarity. That's a shame because there are a lot of busy-bodies who start doing research on their own (the internet is an incredible temptation). That's not a problem if the other jurists out them for admitting it (they can report it to the judge and the judge will ask them and then they can be dismissed) but if a jury member does the research and then doesn't say anything there's no chance of catching it.
On a big jury less of a worry but on a small jury it can easily become an issue.
In fact, if these jury members start talking and then admit to reading social media about the case it could provide additional grounds for appeal.
Hopefully our Legal Eagle covers it.
Well, it differs from state to state (here in the US). For example, a jury in a misdemeanor case may be 6 jurors in a particular state; he same state may require 12 jurors in a felony case.
Especially considering most victims of domestic abuse are not able to sit on a jury for a domestic abuse trial because it brings back so much trauma. So those who have the most experience, are unable to help other victims.
@@ninamo3523 I dont think help is the word you meant. Having that kind of past would allow for a different view than most people, but I think 99 out of 100 would let it also let their past make them bias. So more than likely, the trial would be more than likely to be unfair. I wasn't born at the time but 3 decades after my mom got out of an abusive relationship, just hearing the guys name gives my mom shivers.
@@x--. that is not a shame. Many trials go on for months, in some cases years. You want to "imprison" jurors and destroy their private lifes for doing their civil duty? Also, I find it highly arrogant and strange that it is assumed US adults are capable to take "informed and independent decisions" when voting in elections despite all the biased MSM and SN messaging and election ads but deemed incapable of doing so in a highly publicised trial. Also, the judge is exposed to the same. By your logic all judges, especially on the supreme court, should be sequestered as long as they preside over major cases, basically for life.
I’d love a video comparing and contrasting this case and the UK case and why they came to different outcomes.
Pretty blatant corruption in the UK court for a start
Watch BlackBeltBarrister
Amber wasn't on trial, so amber was allowed to submit only the evidence she wanted to submit.
Everything else was excluded.
In the UK case Depp sued the tabloid the Sun for defamation not Amber.
Meh it's the UK. For some reason, the fact that the judge's son was working for the Sun didn't even constitute a conflict of interest in the UK. I lost all confidence in the UK judicial system with the trial of Count Dankula where they outright said that ''context didn't matter''.
As to Statement B in the counter claim, as someone that watched the entire trial, in the evidence presented to the jury, the officers stated that both police visits were based on the same call. that is what the jury was told hence making statement B false.
I understand how the jury came to that conclusion. What confuses me is why the cops said that in the first place since there absolutely is a 2nd call. Obviously it wasn't played for the jury but it's out there on the internet and it is quite clear that it was made by Heard's friend Rocky Pennington. Giving a lot more weight to Walman's statement.
False doesn't actually cut it, it has to be knowingly false or with reckless disregard of the truth.
Did amber proactively imform Waldman that the two visits were the result of a single call? Otherwise, that sounds pretty nitpicky.
@@morrigonghoulsli4873 we know this as the internet BUT the jury could only go by the evidence provided in court
As someone who has followed the case since the first week (actually watched the trial live, not clips and tiktoks), and has listened the comments made by lawyers watching the trial at the same time, I feel like this summary/explanation of the details of the veredict are quite impartial and accurate. Ty LE, it has been quite frustrating to watch the internet be full of people commenting on the veredict that clearly have no idea what it is actually about, or even what defamation or actual malice is.
For real. It's so annoying to see people ask "Why haven't they closed this case yet?" As if the judge can just say "yeah I've seen enough" and decide that it's time for deliberation halfway through.
+
I'm also pretty shocked to hear here for the first time about the bond to appeal. That seems like a rather important fact to share, that no other channel covering this trial has mentioned in any way to my knowledge. That makes the difference in quality & accuracy here v the rest REALLY clear imo
Yeah LE summed it up very nicely without a hint of bias.
Popcorn planet was the worst offender. Glad we had LE to be informative and impartial
3:54 - I think the bigger point is she ended up admitting she did write that piece about Johnny Depp. When Vasquez was examining her saying "Okay, so all these people are just going to lie for Mr. Depp?" Amber at this point is visibly rattled and frustrated and trying to overtalk Vasquez. After a bit more back and forth when Vasquez asks "So Mr. Depp is just that powerful?" Amber says, "Yes, and that's why I wrote the op-ed." Effectively admitting she did write it, at least part of it, about him.
That moment was also when she showed 'actual malice' to the jury because she showed she wrote it to try and take away his "power" with that exact response
I disagree. it was many moving pieces.
@@lillecathrine Exactly.
I don't think that would hold up, considering that statement could also be interpreted as her referring to men in general getting away with things because people don't hold them accountable.
@@BriandeLint but it did hold up to this jury. That's the point of a jury it couldn't been interpreted that way but it wasn't
Straight to the point and no fluff. I like the direction you're growing.
I love how you explain anything and everything in simple forms. Thank you.
love the explanation, thanks Devin :)
"they both win" he says lmao not.
Didn't expect you here lol
Hmm you’re being a waste man aren’t you?
:)
But if she invented the entire story which has been proved so it’s more than likely that they did call police get no reaction so rough the place up & call them again?
After what we’ve seen so far that’s very probable?
Heard said she was defamed by her allegations being called a hoax? But it was a hoax??
"How can they have both defamed each other?" Well, I'm not sure that there's some universal rule where if you defame one person that other person becomes too good to defame you back.
No, but if someone lies about you and then you claim they are lying about you, it seems a bit of an oxymoron for both to be considered defamatory.
It is actually a significant part of the post-modern thinking which has crept into western civilization that anyone who is a victim cannot then victimize their oppressor. This is why certain classes of people seem to be "protected".
@@Kebersox that's not what happened lol. If you lie about me and I lie about you we both lied. Lol
@@alexp8785 it's certainly not that black and white. Everyone in the world including the jury knows Amber Heard lied about domestic violence. The question is did they set JD up in that exact way. I don't think anyone knows how the jury determined they didn't.
@@alexp8785 I don't think he's referring to Johnny and Amber
Great video! I was hoping to hear more about the actual trial proceedings and lawyering that went on, it's the first time (and I'm sure for a lot of other people too) that I've watched a live trial that was real. It would be great to have a breakdown more like when you break down a tv show and give your opinion on the tactics of the lawyers! Maybe a part 2 is in order :)
Watch Legal Bytes. She did a daily recap all 6 weeks!
The last day on the stand Heard said “...and that’s why I wrote the article about him...” She admitted the article *was* about Johnny on the stand.
There's nobody that goes through a bad break-up, writes about abusive partners, and never connects the dots. If you find someone who does, you've found a space alien.
...was that in question? Her defense was that her claims were true, not that the article wasn't about him.
Uh duh. The entire point was whether the op-ed caused damage to his already failing career, not that she wrote it about him. Y'all are slow.
@@KingBobXVI yes it was. Until that statement she had always denied it was specifically about Depp. That was one of the things that had to be proven to count as defamation.
@@silentsiren-de4eb Not true. You're looking at it superficially.🙄 This was a *defamation* case. The entire point was to prove whether she purposely set out to destroy his name and reputation in that article..in other words, whether there was actual malice or intent. That's why Judge Penny didn't have the jury look at the Op-Ed as a whole, but only *one statement* in the article/title that infers that Amber was a victim of sexual violence at the hands of Johnny.
I don't think people understand how insane it would be to sequester a jury for 6 WEEKS. Imagine being required to not talk to your family or be able to look at a cell phone or computer for 1.5 months, just for this non-criminal trial.
Exactly this.
This needs to be higher.
Especially for how little juries are paid
They weren’t sequestered
@marvinp90 that's why they said, "it WOULD be..."
I'd like to hear more about what were likely the things that hurt Heard the most. I have some guesses but a lawyer with experience dealing with juries would likely have a different perspective.
Fabricating evidence (the photo with the colour balance edited and identical metadata) and contradicting her own team's witnesses... And letting herself be recorded saying 'tell everyone you're a victim of abuse, nobody will believe you.'
@@Highstar25 Also lying about donating to the charities
I think her decision to take the stand hurt her alot. She apparently has a personality disorder that causes her to superficially mimic human emotions in a very unconvincing way.
I think her team failed to manage that disability and team Depp was able to wield it against her effectively. I think that after she testified, a lot of people were looking for reasons to dismiss her narrative.
Plus, she was a terrible witness in general. You, know, because of all that really obvious perjury.
@@Highstar25 don't forget the bruise kit. She said it was for covering up bruises but in Hollywood it's the opposite.
The suppression of both the medical evidence and the UK decision.
That's it.
Anything else you've heard, is just PR.
We are truly blessed to have such a knowledgeable and organized content creator. Thanks, Legal Eagle
But he isn't knowledgable.
@@tjl4688 and he's a leftist hack who doesn't want to talk about this trial except in the most benign way possible.
@@tjl4688 He's a long time corporate lawyer. In what way is he 'not knowledgeable'?
Something to note: at least in VA, compensatory damages are mandatory. The jury first came back with their verdict, but no amount of damages filled out somewhere (based on the 0 punitive, probably Amber's comp) and the judge sent them back saying they have to put something, even if it's a dollar.
Things like this make me smile. It implies that the jury didn't take long to come to the verdict in favor of Johnny, and the wait just came down to deliberating over the awarded damages to each party.
I hear one of the jurors did an AMA on their Instagram and confirmed it was a compromise since not everyone could agree on the amounts.
@@tiffyw92 it was tiktok actually.
@@kimberleywilliams7802 Ah, okay. Apologies for my boomer moment.
@@tiffyw92 the TikTokker claiming to be a juror has been outed as an imposter and has removed his account. IMHO: there are far too many falsehoods surrounding this case, some of which run very deep. We none of us should feel confident that we have a good handle on it. There is way more to this whole affair than meets the eye, as is so often the case with 'hot' news items. (My 2 cents)
@@RocketCalcutta What? Would people really do that? Just go on the Internet and lie?
Jk aside, that's disappointing. He sounded convincing, but I guess he was really vague. And yes, it's a good rule of thumb to not jump to conclusions based on some Internet memes or Twitter hastags... but Amber def didn't help herself at all in court and on live TV. And now she's gonna have trouble even paying for her appeal, especially that no major TV or film network are gonna take her.
I appreciate you staying pretty impartial with this.
Whenever something like this happens, I always wonder how Devin/LegalEagle would do in either side of the court.
He's not the end all be all of lawyers of course, but it's a fun thought process to pretend how a professional we know and trust would do
It depends
Wow. That was informative as hell. You're such a great, interesting speaker and it really aids in the understanding of concepts that otherwise would be completely foreign to me.
And the day before the trial ended Amber slipped up and accidentally admitted that the article was about Johnny Depp in front of the entire court.
Which was news to exactly 0 people.
@@nuanceblacksywin4868 The big up slip up was that she admitted to writing the article BECAUSE Depp was a “powerful man” and wanted to get back at him.
Yes! I made a post about that as well. It almost went like A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise got Jack Nicholson to admit what he did. Courtroom gold.
Yeah, gold
People are making a bigger deal about this comment than is warranted IMHO. It had already been well established by the evidence provided that it was about Johnny by this point. I don't think Heard's side lost any significant ground by that admission.
Just want to point out in case people weren't aware, but the punitive damages being reduced to 350k instead of 5mil was because of Virginia state law. It was not simply the judge's decision, she was just following the law by doing that. Edit: I guess Devin explains this later in the vid, woops! Oh well, who knows if everyone actually watches the whole vid, I'll leave this up still.
It's imperative to remind people of that. That said it's funny to me how much this trial brought out of people.
It seems odd that they jury shouldn't know about that. That seems very important so they know to be reasonable when awarding punitive damages. They wanted him to get $5 million which is a wildly different number, and it's been repeated in the news as result. Seems like a detail that should have been in the jury instructions. 🤷♀️
@@hope-cat4894 I think Devin also mentioned that they do it so that the jury specifically doesn't shift the punitive damages over to the compensatory side instead. For the record, though, 350k as a cap on the PUNISHMENT amount seems extremely low to me considering how high profile the two parties were in this case. On the one hand I get how 350k is more than enough to deter the average person, but I'm unsure how much that'd matter in a lot of defamation cases.
It just makes me think of the episode of 30 Rock where Tracy realizes that he can get away with doing whatever he wants on TV if he just pays a fine to the FCC (cause he's rich, so he doesn't care at all about a fine). I just hope no one looks at it and says, "Oh only 350k to defame somebody? Sign me up!"
@@Zarkawi17 Yes Devin mentioned it. And honestly getting people not to make slanderous comments is impossible, you'd think cases like this would make them at least think about it but nope that hasn't been my experience, but good luck to someone without a lot of money and a good legal team proving you were damaged, defamation cases are a pain when you're the victim to prove your case sufficiently.
I was waiting for your analysis on this. Informative and clear as always!
Most of anything in this case I heard about had me thinking “how is this relevant?? How are they even allowed to be talking about this right now given what the case is about?”
It's a civil case, they can talk about whatever the hell they want, it just doesn't mean it's gonna help them. For Johnny's team, the goal was to show Heard as a compulsive liar in all aspects of their life together so as long as it showed Heard as untrustworthy, they talked about it. And for Heard's team...well I really don't know what they were going for most of the time admittedly, especially when they went on that tangent about Johnny falling asleep in weird places and how he once wasted ice cream by falling asleep while eating it.
@@giantWario Depp's team's goals:
Prove Heard wrote the Op-Ed
Prove it was about Depp
Prove the claims it made were false
Prove its stories, anecdotes and examples were false
Prove that it was written with a malicious agenda, by a lying person
If they failed one of these, they failed, at least for that specific count of defamation.
Heard's teams goals:
Prove the op-ed had no impact on Depp's reputation that he wasn't doing to himself (This is why they harped on about drugs and aggression to other people so much)
Prove *ANY* of the op-ed's claims true. They only needed to prove one of the things they claimed and it wasn't defamation. They couldn't even do that.
Probably making a mistake and didn't learn.
@@giantWario Depp was often so wacked out of his mind on alcohol and/or drugs how can he have any credibility in terms of even remembering what he said or did to Heard? Perhaps that's what the defense was intending to show. Unfortunately, the jury along with you somehow didn't absorb that.
@@quentinj7236 Yes grandpa, everyone who drinks or do drugs becomes violent and forgets about it in the morning, that's totally how it works. Unfortunately for you, Depp had a lot of evidence backing up everything he said while Heard was constantly proven to be lying (although most of the time it wasn't even necessary since she constantly contradicted herself).
Thank you for making this as unbiased as possible. So many mainstream media articles out there keep arguing whether the jury made the right decision instead of informing.
Because mainstream media is just that: _media._ They're entertainers, not news. News isn't even a protected label, so they get to outright make up stuff all the time.
Well they did make the right decision, but I see what you mean, it’s always nice to get more context
While I completely agree - the (main) video should be impartial, I would like to know his *personal* opinion as well. (Which I guess means I don't completely agree? Eh, you get my meaning, I'm sure)
Maybe he'll do a separate video on how he judges (pun intended) the evidence for/against them. I'd be curious, mainly because so far he's shown to be impartial, and I'd value his opinion.
I know no one asks, but my gut feeling is that the verdict was right. I haven't really followed the issue (hence gut feeling), but from what she said, I think it's more likely that she is abusive than him. Drugs and alcohol notwithstanding. It's one thing to smash up unliving things in a rage, it's something completely different to hit a living being, let alone a human.
(Also, obviously both have serious problems and definitely need help. The money should be spend on good psychiatrists instead of moving it around.)
@@christophalexander4542
Having watched a great many hours of testimony and cross examinations, i can say that each event of abuse that amber claimed happened was pretty clearly demonstrated to be a lie.
And I dont think johnny will pursue legal collections action if she doesnt pay. He made it quite clear that the only thing he cared about is clearing his name.
@@christophalexander4542 I watched most of the trial and what happened was that Amber wasn’t honest. She had no credibility. Nobody corroborated her story. If they did, it was inconsistent. She almost never admitted to being wrong. She basically said stuff about audios and photos that didn’t match what people were hearing and seeing. She lied and was gaslighting everyone. That’s a very bad thing to do because when you don’t have a lot of evidence or contradictory stuff, then people have to rely on what you’re saying and she’s not credible. In fact, when it got to the part about how the photos were edited I finally was convinced that the whole thing could’ve been made up by Amber.
Heard actually admitted to writing that article specifically being about Depp during her cross examination on one of the last days of trial (I believe day 22 or 23). Camille Vasquez did an amazing job during that cross.
This, AH admitted to it herself. The whole trial is almost her ticking JD's checklist all by herself in attempts to paint a "I am 100% Angel" picture. JD's case would be more flimsy if she didn't exaggerate or make up things allowing JD's team to corner her deceptions over and over again.
@@KelvGaming Yup; the law was on her side, but she mucked it up anyway. It’s like she went out of her way to make up stuff, on the spot, it seemed, as if the quantity of claims was the only thing that mattered, and not reliance on actual facts and evidence.
Camille's cross was fantastic and really put Heard on the spot. Her closing arguments were spot on too. Definitely the brightest star in the drama.
The female lawyer on the other side, though... Wow. I thought the Rittenhouse prosecutors were clowns, but she took that crown.
And not for political 'sides' either. Those lawyers were all complete buffoons irrespective of which side they were arguing.
You were the first person I thought of after it was all over... I thought, Can't wait to see LegalEagle do this!!
lmao - same here
If she had an insurance policy to cover her court costs, would the insurer cover the lawyer fee's then dispute the judgement or do they bail out on the legal fees as well after a verdict of malice being found?
The insurance policy may or may not have covered costs... but once she's found liable she has to pay it back to the insurance company. You cannot lie and defame someone and have insurance cover it.
Here's a question I think we all want answered: Did Heard commit perjury? Is perjury a thing in civil cases?
It's is absolutely illegal, but it's rarely persecuted in civil cases (more so in criminal ones). She did commit perjury (multiple, I think, but 'I hit him' -> 'I never landed a hit on him' is most infuriating one, next to her word-play with pledge/donate - there is also issue of her tastifiying different than she did in the UK's case against The Sun), but I heard there are some investigations of her?
Perjury is indeed a thing in civil cases. Not even a trial is necessarily a prerequisite for perjury. Signing a false affidavit or lying in a deposition counts as perjury too. Lying is pretty much either 100% legal (when you haven't sworn an oath) or 100% illegal (when you have).
That's your question?
My question is how can they have shown that Depp DID indeed commit abuse of Heard, yet also her talking about it was defamatory?
This seems like the jury overreaching and Heard being a very unsympathetic victim coupled with (pun unintended) Johnny Depp being very popular and charming.
Then again, it's also just rich people being awful. Whoever I found for in this case, I would have awarded them only $1.
Not sure about her, quite possible, but Depp sure did. For example, the video of him throwing stuff around was dated months before his mother died. So yeah.
A lot of the news articles about her committing perfury were planted by Depp's team. Like his lawyer filed a complaint in LA so they could run the headline "Amber heard invesitgated for perjury in LA" even though they didn't care in to pursue anything in LA.
Amber testified in trial that the article was about Mr Depp and the ACLU testified that the first drafts contained Mr Depp name.
Yes, it's obvious that the abuse about which she spoke publicly was abuse from Depp. The suit was not about her initial public claims of abuse, however. The suit was specifically about the article. The point of the article was that the public attacked Heard as a result of her having spoken out about her experience of being abused. If anyone could claim defamation based on the article it would seem it would be "the public," though it is hard to argue that the public did not attack Heard, especially now that we see the way the public has attacked her throughout the trial and now after.
Imagine that everything or even most of what she has claimed Depp did to her is true. The way Heard is being treated would be a disgrace. It's difficult to understand why so many people somehow think they know that Ms. Heard is lying and are focusing all of their pent up anger and frustration toward her. Unless we've been present throughout the entirety of their interactions, how can we be certain? Why is anyone willing to give a man who has abused alcohol and drugs for years the benefit of the doubt? Because you think he's handsome? Because he played a role in a movie you liked?
@@quentinj7236 Or maybe 🤔 people watch the trial and saw and heard Amber's contradictions and exaggerations and concluded she wasn't authentic. They heard Depp own his behavior and concluded he was more trustworthy.
By the way the some (maybe most) Alcoholics and drug abusers are not outwardly violent.
@@quentinj7236 with regards to her being attacked now, she brought it on herself. she thought it was perfectly fine that the public turn against johnny, that he lose movie roles over her allegations and that he was supposed to stay quiet and just take it.
she said it herself "tell the world johnny" and he did and we see the result. contradictory evidence and testimonies from her, multiple pictures, video and audio recordings and not a single one has him raise a hand at her, not a single one as her say something along the lines of "why did you hit me?"
there is only one person in that relationship who is caught on audio admitting to hitting the other and thats amber heard. she even admits that whenever things escalate between them he just walks away every time.
do i need to go on?
@@mitchhamilton64 Not sure how you know that she thought public treatment of Depp was fine. Also, you're assuming she's completely lied about everything. Even then I doubt she deserves the treatment she has been receiving. At the very least she was in a mutually destructive relationship. Too many people are acting as if she was the entire problem.
@@quentinj7236 She was the entire problem.
She took pictures to embarrass him, regularly harassed him until he felt the need to flee, physically assaulted him and lied about him physically assaulting her.
There. Is. No. Evidence. That he did anything more than get baited into shouting matches and feel bad about it. Granted, that's not healthy, but neither is it SA with a whisky bottle or pounding her face in with big chunky rings. Those things were lies. Specifically. You're ignoring the fact that amber's lies were specific allegations with dates and times and manufactured evidence. So Yes. We can know. I'm not guessing, its not an assumption. She lied. It was defamatory. It was malicious.
I watched the entire legal eagle Nebula ad before I watched this video. Worth it.
I appreciate you not making this a spectacle as so many other news outlets and platforms have.
I second this. Yay to Legal Eagle for not using this circus to gain more followers.
Yeah hopefully seeing people make TikTok’s of court cases for clout goes away.
@@RonquixoteDIII if there was a way to describe this entire thing it would be Carol Baskin 2: Somehow Even Dumber.
The fact that this trial was a spectacle is incredibly important. The world needed to see the facts in order for Johnny to truly clear his name. If the trial happened behind closed doors and the exact same verdict was reached nothing would change. The fact that the trial was available for all to see is a huge win not just for Depp, but for all victims of domestic abuse.
@@connor_phillipz5689 I agree. Even now though Depp has won and the jury found Amber liable for lying about everything she claimed (and she's shown to be pretty damn insane), every mainstream media outlet is claiming this was a trial of "misogyny." The gaslighting is hilarious, as if millions of people haven't watched every single second of the trial and seen Amber's lies methodically debunked one by one.
I'm curious what you have ti say about the ACLU suing Depp to make him pay for the time it took to produce documents for the trial
I too am very curious about this. Is this at all normal? I don't think it makes sense for someone to be out a bunch of money for a case that doesn't really concern them, but do they usually sue one of the parties to recover any lost funds?
They actually are sueing? Wow. You'd think they have enough egg on thier faces over this
The ACLU lost a lot of credibility when they decided to promote domestic violence lies with a clickbait title in order to dig for more donation money.
Next they'll sue him for the time it took them to write the article which defamed him.
@@XdivineExp Wouldn't that just be punitive? To say "don't take too long"? As a punishment rather than hurting finances. That makes sense to me
Thank you for the breakdown!
Simple reason why both earn damages "2 wrongs don't make a right"
30 seconds into the video and it reminds me why people don't usually go to court for defamation; there is a small truth in rumors most of the time. If you got actual dirt on you, even small dirt, and are going against a monster, that dirt will be brought up in front of hundreds (in this case millions) of people. Your actions will be scrutinized and your privacy played like toys.
most people don't go to court over it because its an unreasonably hard case to prove, and the invasion of privacy goes both ways. Which is why the Depp win is so astounding. In reality, if there was any defamation case that would actually succeed, it was this one. The trial was so one sided, I cannot believe that people are still refusing to see the evidence to stand behind Heard. Everything she submitted was demonstrated to be faked. Edited photos, edited recordings, tipping off TMZ multiple times, edited video, staged photos, and not to mention the handful of times Heard got confused in even her own lies on the stand. She admitted to actual malice in the final cross examination, which imo, sealed the deal. I absolutely hate the talking point that this decision will be worse on abuse victims, because it presupposes Depp to not be a victim of abuse, when everything we have seen shows the opposite. Amber Heard has done unspeakable amounts of damage to the Me Too movement. She used it as a tool, manipulating even the ACLU, hurting the credibility of both the organization and the movement.
Well if it's true it's not defamation, so obviously you wouldn't go to trial like that unless it was your intention to lie or conceal the truth. Not sure what "small dirt" means in this context. A teensy bit of abuse?
I have refused to keep up with this trial, specifically waiting on you to do a video about it
Same
Idk watching it with legalbytes was pretty nice. Having legal professional, medical professionals and others weigh-in as it went on was enjoyable
That's a terrible way to experience a trial. You're trusting someone to give you their opinions and insights on something you don't have firsthand knowledge before making your own judgments. This is part of what's wrong with the world, people not using their own kinds and relying on others to make decisions for them.
@@beardsmcguiness8463 Why would someone with no expertise on a subject ignore the perspective of people who do have that expertise? Even if I, who has no relevant expertise on this subject, were to watch every day of the trial myself, I wouldn't be in a position to make an informed opinion on the subject. Listening to people who actually know what they're talking about isn't a problem, it's the best way to not jump to BS conclusions on a subject because of your own biases. The important thing is to remain skeptical of others takes on things, and to not rely wholly on one source of information.
@@beardsmcguiness8463 So we all have to keep up with the trial of two celebrities suing each other? That sounds exhausting and I have better things to do. Besides we're not just trusting 'someone' to give their opinions and insights - LegalEagle is a legal expert, so waiting for his opinion is valid. Part of what's wrong with the world today is people thinking their own opinion is just as valid - or more valid - than experts in that field. I prefer to learn from experts than confidently getting things wrong because I refused to listen to anyone but myself.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I hope your sponsors pay you well because you have the BEST ads (not to mention flawless segues into those ads) .
I love your channel so much! I think it is so important that the average person understands the basics of how our laws work in this country. With the little bit of background I have, it's still hard and you explain everything so well. Keep up the good work!
I would love to hear your opinions on both the lawyers and witnesses in this trial, specifically the expert ones, concerning what you think they did right and what you think they did wrong and how well you think they did in general?
To me, Depp did not have nearly as credible of a expert. Not board licensed, only spoke with heard for 12 hours over two meetings also is not qualified to make diagnoses such as BPD and histrionic complex. she is a clinical psychologist, not a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologist arent. Psychiatrists diagnose illness, manage treatment and provide a range of therapies for complex and serious mental illness. Psychologists focus on providing psychotherapy (talk therapy) to help patients. Pyschiatrits study and practice for avg 11 years before they are qualified and always have an MD. Psychologist do 6 years. Heards medical expert was much much much more qualified than Shannon Curry who on the stand, said she had diagnosed BPD and Histrionic syndrome over 12 hours on two sessions. The Psychiatrist who diagnosed heard with severe PTSD spent 26 hours with her and is qualified.
@@TheFamousMockingbird Maybe on paper, but in real life people who are more qualified on paper are not necessarily more knowledgeable. I've seen extreme incompetence hidden behind degrees and when it came down to actual argumentation, presentation, and professionalism Dr.Curry blew Ambers Expert out of the water imo.
Bad arguments are bad arguments no matter who makes them, and I found the replies and criticisms Dr Curry had about the other womans work to be much better articulated, which to me spoke of greater insight and understanding concerning the subject matter, while the other womans replies felt more defensive rather than explanatory both in the substance of the argument itself, as well as the way she presented the arguments.
@@TheFamousMockingbird Heard’s expert was a psychologist definitely not a psychiatrist
@@TheFamousMockingbird clinical psychologists are perfectly able and qualify to diagnose mental illnesses - in my country, most of the more complex diagnostic questionnaires are done and evaluated my them. let me tell you that you learn very little about psychology in medschool, hence the need for further education afterwards (btw, all specialties require that anyway). best regards, a med student
@@TheFamousMockingbird I was shocked at the outdated and unprofessional information Dr Curry was given and the incredibly narrow time frame in which she claimed to make her diagnoses and the incredibly linear view she had of them spoke very heavily of someone who is not an expert in Personality Disorders.
I also do not understand why she was an dinner with Johnny Depp to be interviewed for the position. Maybe I'm used to following criminal law but that is wildly unprofessional to me.
I am curious as to why Heard agreed to be interviewed by Depp's chosen expert even though Depp had refused to be interviewed in turn.
I can't imagine why anyone would advise her to do that.
Bravo! An objective, balanced, and informative video on the outcome. I tip my cap to you Legal Eagle.
Signed up for Morning Brew! Also the lifestyle/pop culture one, too. Thanks for the compelling recommendation!
I think you did a fantastic job explaining exactly what happened without bias for any side. It’s exactly the type of video I was looking for and felt extremely informative. My appreciation is over the top
thanks for explaining the cap on punitive damages...you're the first channel to properly explain the cap. And I think all of the others I've seen said that the jury just have known about the cap, that it must have been mentioned to them, and that they made a mistake. Your explanation makes much more sense...although I'm sure sometimes there is a juror who knows about the cap.
Just came here to say I am really surprised that lamp didn't fall off the table! Every time his elbows shook the desk it set off my anxiety thinking the lamp was gonna shimmy off the desk 😅
Still don't understand how anyone supported Heard in this
there are people that still support her
@@SlotsLIVE how
Objection! We have not had a (full-length) video on objections yet!
Love your content and would really love to see an educational video on objections (Both criminal and civil law), perhaps with an in-video objection game with footage from real cases with time to guess the correct objection before your expert explanation! Thanks for the consideration!
Objection: Objection. Legal Egal did that a month ago.
Sustained
@@nuanceblacksywin4868 I saw the shorts on the lawyer objecting to himself (Is that the one you're referring to?), but I think a full length video on the different types of objections in civil and criminal law would be really interesting with real life examples / "guess the correct objection game". I have found some online objection games or court room simulator, but like a lot legal educational material it's pretty dry. In addition to Devin being super entertaining and brilliant, he the only lawyer i've seen who has mastered the art of producing quality legal youtube content; he knows just the right amount detail and depth for his videos, and I think a full length video on objections with examples and explanation would be gold.
@@greg5028 Sure. I won't object to that. And it was the shorts video I was thinking about.
@@greg5028 that video would be 5 hours long if he went through all the objections
I love how they claim the Op-ED she wrote wasn’t about Johnny Depp but the entire case was about him. She didnt even mention anyone else
And she by the end of her testimony slipped up and said she wrote it about Depp...
If she mentioned someone else during the case, wouldn't she be sued by them too?
she said the only person that made it about JD was JD. She wanted to portrait him as a narcissist. I know he isn't perfect and I don't even personally know him, but he doesn't come up as narcissist.
You say she didn't mention anyone else, but she said sexual abuse was something she suffered prior to graduating high school. So I'm pretty sure that wasn't in reference to Depp.
@@jasonibanez9855 she said during her testimony that he sexually assaulted her with a broken liquor bottle.
That suit is looking CRISP my friend. Love the style. Indochino does it again.
It's great to see some objective, just the facts ma'am, analysis in this sea of crud that's passed for coverage and analysis of this trial. Thank you!
What elaine is doing, running rounds in media, doing PR, claiming some "rejected evidence", and blaming the jury for bias is despicable. Those people had more than a month of their life taken away, to settle a case for between millionaires, while getting $30 a day and she has the audacity to shame them. Her claim of social media influencing the jury is the most ridiculous, since it was HER SIDE, that brought social media/ twitter hashtag expert into court, in a failed attempt to gather sympathy for amber, but instead they showed the jury, how overwhelming the lack of belief in Heard's claims is. Elaine did that, not as she claims "jurors family and friends". She introduced the court of public opinion into the courtroom. Really shamefull.
The jury should sue for defamation. That would be funny.
I disagree with the statement "They both win" on a variety of different levels, but the main one being this: Both in the public's eye (important for such public figures) and in monetary gains/loses, there was an obvious deficit on one side. Not to mention that the case on that same side was only able to get a partial verdict in their favor. This is why I stick to criminal cases. Even the grey area in verdicts is black and white and the term "Win" isn't used so willy-nilly.
You are simply fabulous! Thank you!
I really like your style , you explain things with aplomb... thank you. Hello from Australia.
Thanks for uploading on this one. I’ve been graduating and moving out this month so I haven’t had a ton of time to follow the trial, but I was wondering what the verdict would mean going forward.
Watch it when you find some time, it was both interesting and eye-opening. Also, you can find the uncensored audios on UA-cam, which give an incredible context and additional information.
@@huskytail it was a public exhibition of private pain. It's really pathetic that people treated failed relationship as entertainment.
@@pattygould8240 where the hell did you see people using it for entertainment?
Take time to watch. It’s very eye opening.
@@tink6225 the person I replied to is recommending it to the person they replied to. It's literally been half of the stories Google recommended since the beginning of the trial and most of the videos UA-cam has recommended. It's not news, it's not educational, it's entertainment for voyeurs.
I would be interested in an opinion on Heard's lawyer doing media interviews following the verdict, making claims that the jury acted improperly. I'm no lawyer but this seems as if it might usually be frowned upon, is it? Is it common?
Lawyers do this all the time. Not only that, it would be protected under the first amendment.
The judge was 100% irresponsible in not sequestering them jury and televising the trial. Such a wrong move for a case like this.
Seems kind of a dick move to blame the jury. Do you think people would have any sympathy for that argument? People who didn't watch the trial perhaps?
Disagreeing with the jury is legal.
@@trogdor20X6 she lost
A very well spoken video bro!🙏🏼
I've seen lots of clip videos making fun of Amber Heard's attorney's performance. Pausing a lot, looking like she's trying to think of her strategy or her next question, reviewing notes, etc. When watching a movie or tv show everything glides along smoothly, which is to be expected in a scripted program. But my thinking is that this has given viewers the expectation that this is how a real trial in a real courtroom is meant to go, and any deviation means someone is incompetent or unprepared. So what I'm asking is, during an examination, are pauses, references to notes or regrouping when your rhythm is interrupted, are those par for the course for a real courtroom experience?
Question: What happens if a juror knows about the punitive damages cap? Since this case was aired publically and the judge stating that the punitive amount would be changed according to statute was part of that public stream, this means a ton of potential future Virginia jurors now know there's a limit.
Probably nothing unless said juror was trying to heavily influence the verdict based on that one bit of info (in which case they might be at fault for being overly prejudiced against one side instead of trying to uphold the law or spirit of the law). In all honesty though, I doubt that a court would kick someone out for actually knowing the law since that seems really counter intuitive and would look bad for said court if word got out that they didn't want the jury to act based on the law.
TL;DR: It depends but probably.
the chances of another case like this with the figures involved seem low to me, but I suppose if people remember this tidbit in the future they would potentially think to up the compensatory figure because they know there's a cap on the punitive.
@@walterco7701 Which is exactly why they weren't supposed to know about the punitive cap in the first place. On one hand, this could be something lawyers feel is necessary to ask about in jury selection, but on the other hand asking in and of itself informs the juror that a cap exists.
@@JennaGetsCreative You could ask some roundabout question on familiarity of Virginia law without ever specifically asking about the punitive damages cap or really anything that pertains to the case at hand. It's not an exact science, but neither is jury selection. It's all about generalities and how those might lend themselves to one side or the other.
The chances that such a person exists are slim and most of those types likely to know are easily weeded out: one of the questions you are bound to be asked during selection will have to do with certain jobs that people hold that may influence their opinion or knowledge on a subject. For example I was a juror candidate for a criminal trial once and one of the many many questions we were all asked (the juror pool was large enough that questions were asked to the entire group all at once instead of individually) was if we had ever worked for law enforcement, including as security guards or correctional officers. None of us who said we had were selected for the jury.
As a note: The courts do NOT want expert jurors, they want the jurors to listen to the expert witnesses and use those opinions, not the juror's own expert opinion, no matter how good it is. The reason for this is because the jury is only supposed to decide based on the evidence PRESENTED and the arguments that were ACTUALLY MADE, not the arguments that a juror thinks they /should/ have made. After all, there may be very valid reasons why certain evidence was not presented or arguments weren't made that the jurors are not privy to.
I'm kinda wondering what the liability is towards Elaine's defamatory statements about the jury, judge, and the opposing lawyers in the case of Depp v. heard. would you be able to give your legal opinion on this as well as the potential of perjury against amber heard as she was obviously lying on the stand?
i would like to know this too.
As the vídeo says, you can sue anyone for any reason you claim. If any of those people want to seek damages they're free to try.
I have been very curious about all of that, as well.
I was baffled when she made all of those defamatory accusations … directly after a trial in which her client got 2 million dollar for the similarly defamatory accusations of Waldman.
I felt a lil sorry for Elaine at the beginning of the trial saddled with a client I had already learnt was a liar and abuser (mostly by the audio recordings that have been around for past couple of years) but noticing weird and unprofessional behaviour during the trial (like when Elaine mocked Depp's talking style) that sympathy for Elaine started to drop. Now after her disgusting attitude and blaming everyone but her own client's blatant lies and contradictions? Elaine comes across almost as delusional as her client. We saw the trial, Elaine, we know you're talking absolute bullcrud. And for god's sake STOP exploiting real survivors and the metoo movement for your own gain just as Heard has been all these years.
Thanks for the explanation of precedence. I was more concerned about that than I needed to be!
Is there any way that the public nature of the trial could have made the jury already form an opinion about the case before it ended? Even if it might be ultimately right (or wrong) isn't that bad because it gives confirmation bias to the jury and harder to prove otherwise
I have been waiting for this since the verdict came out.
Question regarding Adam Waldman. Since Waldman was an attorney speaking on behalf of his client (Depp), and the jury found that Waldman’s statement was defamatory, can Depp make a claim against Waldman to recoup the damages awarded to Heard for his statement? Like is that something that malpractice insurance would cover?
Came here for this question.
no because he was an agent of depp, like a spokesperson
and he has made clear that it wasn't about the money
I've seen lawyers who said yes he could but everyone agrees depp would never do that.
What gets me is that what the lawyer said was true and still found to be defamatory. But then I read it was a negotiation between two factions in the jury.
@@macmcleod1188
Where can i read the jury negotiations?
Thanks for making it easy to understand 😊
I'm honestly curious how true the rumors I've been hearing about how the jury wasn't kept isolated from the social media content surrounding the trial (memes, tiktoks, etc) actually are. I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems weird to have a trial live-streamed and not have measures in place to prevent the jury from seeing biased content on social media that could influence their decision. Is there any chance we'll get information on that directly from the court rather than the he-said, she-said we're going to get from their lawyers?
I mean they aren't rumors, it goes without saying that they could have looked stuff up when they weren't in court, but they were instructed not to. It's basically an honor system. It would be completely unreasonably expensive for courts to sequester juries for over a month for the sake of civil suits like this. It's just never gonna happen. Imagine if a court said you have to stay basically in a prison without any contact with the outside world for 7 weeks. Would you be happy to participate in jury duty? And who is paying for this? Your food, your accommodations.. So yeah, they could have looked stuff up. As could any jury in a civil suit. It is what it is.
Ironically, Amber's lawyer Elaine is arguing that they didn't get their mountains of evidence into court because it was disallowed by the judge. How can she also argue that it was detrimental to her case that the jury could see the media, wouldn't that mean they could have seen that "mountain of evidence" that was kept from them?
people worry too much, the jury already SAW the whole trial live, that IS what their job was afterall, if they are seeing biased content afterwards they 1. likely already agreed with said bias, and 2. they already know the full facts of the trial (they were LITERALLY there afterall) so that the bias doesnt sway them
@@WelcomeBackMeHere "Ironically, Amber's lawyer Elaine is arguing that they didn't get their mountains of evidence into court because it was disallowed by the judge."
funnily enough, this is what actually happened to Depp in the UK, he was not allowed to submit basically any evidence whatsoever, UK has extremely high burdens of proof on the one being defamed to prove they were defamed, unlike the US that requires the one alleged to be doing the defamation to prove they werent doing defamation
@@WelcomeBackMeHere not if the opposite narrative was being pushed by a million dollars machine, bots and algorithms like it seems to have been.
@@XiaoYueMao ahm, you have it the wrong way around. UK law is notoriously favorable to the person claiming defamation, even to the degree that only speaking true things about the person is not sufficient defense. Public figures have been using the law to go after reporters for decades now because showing that every thing you said was accurate still will not get you out of a defamation suit as long as they can claim you did it 'with malice'.
I have a question on the grounds of an appeal, can it be argued that the Jury were influenced by social media during their break from the lawsuit? Was it normal for them to be allowed to go back to their homes like that? I’ve always thought jury’s were isolated until the case is settled.
It can be argued. As was said in this video, you can sue anyone for anything. But good luck actually proving they were.
No, juries are rarely ever sequestered in civil cases, no matter how high profile. Only in high profile criminal cases is it done. Otherwise no, it’s not usual
@@holly.earendil5187 Also, am I wrong or since this was a civil trial they couldn't have been sequestered anyway until the end of the trial? So after hearing all the evidence? Including therefore the 10 day break that the lawyer was explicitly complaining about?
I don't think people understand how insane it would be to sequester a jury for 6 WEEKS. Imagine being required to not talk to your family or be able to look at a cell phone or computer for 1.5 months, just for this non-criminal trial
If they were isolated for 6 weeks without talking to anyone or internet access, that would be considered inhumane and borderline crime. Lmao
Regardless of who was in the right, or what abused happened where, it's insanely creepy how the internet turned this trial into a giant meme
A lot of the MGTOW types jumped right on this as a gotcha moment against the excesses of MeToo. Those jokers are losers.
But the trial is still important to the larger conversation about abuse survivors vs gender politics and believeallwomen, and I'm glad it was televised so that her lawyers doubling down on misinformation can be seen through
not really. it was about JD possibly the 2ed most loved actor on the internet. and well there was alot of bufoonery in this trial like ambers face when she said "my dog steped on a bee" and ect. the internet will meme anything.
Thanks for explaining
I was so waiting for this
The Code section you cited refers to Courts not of Record. The Depp v. Heard case was in a circuit court, which is a court of record. Code of Virginia, § 1-212. Courts of record.
"Courts of record" means the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and the circuit courts. There are different bond requirements for circuit courts. You'll want to look at Code of Virginia, § 8.01-676.1, which deals with security for appeals in Circuit Courts (Subsections B & C are the relevant sections). She'll only need to post the full damages bond if she wants to stay execution of judgment.
Be careful, his minions will come out and try to challenge you.
"A Dark Challenger suddenly appeared.."
You should start the post with OBJECTION! 👍
I understand he may have cited the wrong code, but isn't his point still valid? He said she will have to pay a bond to appeal, and that bond would cost millions. 10 mil is millions. And aren't attorney fees required as well?
Absolutely correct. It is weird that LegalEagle got this wrong. I knew about this code when listening but you cited the law brilliantly 👏
She has to pay the charges, that much is certain but is she also paying for his legal fees? That's probably in the millions as well, I'm assuming.
There is going to be a hearing, I think that's for the 24th of June, to decide that. But the answer is almost certainly "no".
@@Djorgal no judgement will be paid for years anyway. This will go into appeals.
@@kenconnelly773 do you even watch the video? In order to appeal she need to deposit full
Amount of the dammage to court and then she cAn appeal
no, there are no costs - depp pays his legal fees, heard pays hers - if the credit card stretches to it
@@kelvindoang1228 2 things. 1) she either has to post an amount equal to the judgment OR an amount approved by the judge, if you paid closer attention to the video you would know that. She’ll likely ask for a lower bond. 2) even if she has to post the full amount of the judgment, you never know who might take up her cause, and she does have supporters.
This is literally the only content I intend to consume on this topic.
I WAS WAITING FOR THIS IM SO EXCITED!!!
"I've actually been subscribed to Morning Brew for forever"
Objection, unquantifiable
Question: Amber Heard was caught lying on the stand, under oath, several times. Does that not matter in civil court?
it never really matters tbh. It's technically illegal but expected and common for people to lie in court by those who work in court cases. Nothing usually comes of it.
What was the lie? If you are basing her lies on the fact she lost, that does not mean she lied.
@UCSJNzuazpVbP1nH8EVGcJKw Objection, Hearsay,
@@darwinfinche9959 She claimed two pictures were different pictures taken a different times even though it was clearly the same photo edited to make her face look more red. It was too obvious
@@Problemsolver434 Depp also made a similar claim regarding a photo he claimed was from 2016, but was actually in 2015. I doubt anything will proceed from either of these incidents.
I just got LegalEagle's ad paid by Nebula for the first time on this video.
Thank you
Nice to see an impartial lawyer review this case