Real Lawyer Reacts: BREAKING NEWS Juror in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial Speaks Out
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2022
- #amberheard #johnnyDepp #lawyeryouknow
Do you or someone you know need to speak to a real lawyer about a case? Or do you find yourself needing legal advice? Please reach out to our firm and we will make sure to answer your questions or find someone who can. Our consultations are always free and confidential. You can call our firm at (727)441-9030 or email us at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com.
✅ For business inquiries contact me at lawyeryouknow@gmail.com
✅ Let's connect: www.tragoslaw.com/
Twitter - @tragoslaw
Instagram - /tragoslaw
Facebook - /tragoslaw
TikTok - /tragoslaw
✅ Join our email list here - bit.ly/33lV3Mb
✅ Join this channel to get access to perks:
ua-cam.com/channels/xAH.html...
✅ Get your Lawyer You Know merch here - bit.ly/LYKMerch
🔴 NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Intro & Outro Music: DOLYJJVS2W8MGNFM - Розваги
In Depp defense he reacted to what Amber did to him nobody could take all that abuse from their spouse without any kind of reaction,luckily he was not violent towards her he just used verbal defense towards her and that also could not compare to her level of abuse she did to him.
agreed. And the worst thing he said to her was "I'm leaving"...honestly any relationship that is ending can get nasty because there is so much anger and resentment that has been built up just coming out.
There’s a good lesson to be learned here for Lawyers, that I’m not sure Lawyers see it from the eyes of a Jury all the time?
Most attorneys really liked Rottenborn, but he came off dishonest to me & I think the Jury just told you why.
Rottenborn came off as if he didn’t want the witness to answer honestly with context, he wanted the witness to say what he wanted them to say.
Camille, even though really aggressive with AH, usually let her answer how she wanted, then asked the question again, if she didn’t answer it clearly & would only object, if she went off the rails.
Camille seemed like she was trying to get to the truth, while Rottenborn felt like he was trying to tailor the truth.
Agreed. Except that I think the other male lawyer on AH’s team was worse than Rottenborn. He was horribly aggressive and rude. His cross of the transactional lawyer for Depp was horrid. And he was always yes or no, yes or no, yes or no, in the rudest way.
Would say Camille was very assertive not agressive. When AH went into story, she brought her back to the question.
@@jovicrazed the lawyer when doing cross can demand yes or no answers.. but he was nervous and lacked the ability to ask for yes or no in a way that didn't seem like an ahole.
But when the lawyer asks for a yes or no and the answer is not a yes or no then it becomes a very confusing loop, especially when the witness isn't allowed to explain why it isn't a yes or no answer.. which happened in this trial with one of the experts. He refused to say yes or no and wasn't allowed to explain why he couldn't answer.
@@QargZer Yes, I know. Nonetheless, his style - which is what I was referring to - was atrocious IMO. Sharp elbows indeed.
@@jovicrazed agree!
Her testimony made me uncomfortable! I can’t imagine being in that jury box. She lied about so much, I couldn’t believe anything she said.
Camille literally asked AH on the stand “why would you buy the monster, the man who beat you, who you thought would kill you, a knife?” -- so she got the jury questioning the absurdity of it.
My interpretation is that the jury saying "We didn't take into account anything outside the court room", he was probably referring to the masses of people outside the court on their drive in each day, that were obviously there for Johnny Depp. That's the most obvious thing I can think of. As someone who has sat on a jury, when the Judge admonished us every day to not do any outside research, I took that very seriously. We had the lives of other people in our hands, and we knew we couldn't get it wrong. I don't believe for any reason that they violated their oaths.
That was my first thought also; second thought is that the juror has heard the AH interview, where she makes the accusation that jurors were influenced by things outside the courtroom, and it's just a denial of proposition by AH.
Ambers lawyers run with this narrative of the jurors being influenced by social media is cuz her team is hella guilty for looking online
If I was a juror, I'd take it seriously and not go against the rules. And I know my family and friends would be supportive and not share with me. I'm sure there's lots of conscientious people out there with decent morals. It's because Amber is bent, she therefore thinks everyone else is the same. Shame .
@@trailrunner925 Agree and all these mentions of 'how could they know that' seems to be responses they are now aware of being critized as jurors and responding to it.
Peter missed it.
29:18 in the paragraph it clearly states “ We ONLY looked at the evidence.”
I appreciate that you present both sides of the argument. I know you get battered at times for presenting Amber’s side, but I am here to hear a non-biased, educated opinion. Keep up the good work.
It so odd to directly look at the jury, they assumed she was told to do so. We all assumed the same.
@@juliawilly9151 I had to testify once and my lawyer told me to talk to the jury, not her. I tried to for one answer and it made me uncomfortable so I just looked forward. AH was creepy the way she kept staring at them but I would not be surprised if she was told to do that.
They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,” the juror said. “I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”This was whole thing
She claimed she couldn’t pay the charities because Johnny sued her and it cost her over 6 million, after she claimed to have already paid them!??
Also she had it over a year before Johnny sued her
@@johannawigg6921 yes she did!!! And she rented a massive house in Virginia for a stupid amount of money! 13,000 sf AND $22,000.00 a month!!! But she can’t pay to the charities right?!
Plus she had the money for 13 months before he sued her
Generally speaking, the only people who say, “the two parties were mutually abusive”, are people who have never been in an abusive situation. There is always a victim and an oppressor. Period.
I've been in an abusive relationship and I'm sorry, but mutual abuse is a real thing and it's a pretty well documented phenomena by psychologists. Of course though the risk of saying that something is mutual abuse is the potential to miss a situation where there is an aggressor and a victim, and the victim is only occasionally reacting to the abuse they are getting with similar abusive behaviors. But there are absolutely cases where both people in a relationship have a consistent pattern of controlling and abusive behavior with each other.
I think it's a matter of phrasing. Generally I would agree that in a clear-cut abusive relationship it would probably be 99% in one direction. But I think you can look at lots of individual instances and see abusive comments or whatever go in both directions. Johnny did say some terrible things about her, and I think examples such as the infamous kitchen recording 'could' maybe constitute some definition of psychologically abusive. In my view, she was the abuser, but he over the years became so hardened and moody that he would also treat her and talk to her in ways you really shouldn't treat other people. You can argue it's a,response to her, or a result of her treatment of him, which I believe too, but I think you can call a scenario like this sort of mutually abusive. That doesn't change the (likely) fact that she was the only one who crossed the line and made it physical. And of course who made it public and defamatory, as well.
This is a ridiculously simplistic assumption. The victim can also engage in retaliatory behaviours that viewed in isolation fit within the scope of "abuse". This issue of wordplay was played out in this very court case. Blame the extremely broad definition that has developed in the past 2 decades of "abuse" and "violence"
Johnny slamming cabinet doors isn’t acting abusive. Upset yes but how many people have been upset and slammed a door
Thanks, God
Peter I appreciate your objective analysis. You even take the time to evaluate the semantics and implications of many individual statements that might be overlooked. The details are important and you crush it every time. Thank you
After sitting there & listening to the trial for like 8 hours I doubt jurors were wanting to go home and look up more on the trial. They were probably tired of it all.
That what I have been saying. Anyone being summoned or serving in n a jury knows it is mentally and physically draining. Those wood chairs are VERY uncomfortable. Some courtrooms are equipped with padded chairs. Still, sitting in those chairs with short breaks in between for 8 hours k i l l s your lower back. You just want to go home and crash in comfy sofa or bed.
I think the jury is saying… why didn’t her team advise her that the staring is not working… but I believe she ran her counsel… and doesn’t seem to be the type to follow directions… you see she continues to do things that are not good or working in her favor…. She lies under oath… lied and snuck her dogs into Australia, lied about donating. 🤦🏾♀️
The lawyers brought up “why would you buy him a knife.” So the jurors having that same question as the rest of us doesn’t mean they were watching socials.
Crocodile tears means NOT A SINGLE TEAR.
I wouldn’t have believed Amber if she had cried real tears.
One of the major things I was getting from Amber and her attorneys was bullying. It just seem deliberately forceful and pushy.
I was a stage actress for years and one of my strongest points was crying on command. I could conjure tears out of the blue. For the sake of argument … they were crocodile tears. Amber does not have this strength.
He didn’t say physically abusive!! Right- he didn’t hit her. I agree!
She cried on the stand when the judge kept sustaining Camille's objections because of hearsay. She started crying. Really crying. I think the realisation that she was going to loss because everything she had was hearsay. No evidence or witness to substantiate it.
During the trial I assumed her team told her to stare at the jury because ALL her witnesses did the same. If I were a juror, I would blame her team for that.
It is OK to look at the jurors. I don't think any team would ask their client to stare at jurors. No one on Amber's side over did the staring like she did. She abused it.
@@SammySam316 I disagree. Dr. Hughes was exactly as bad as AH. Spiegler did until he got caught up in heated debate. Whitney tried (you could see she needed to conciously remember sometimes). It looked very evident to me that they were all coached to do this
They say when ur on the stand to acknowledge the jury, not talk directly to them to where its a one sided conversation. Like Turd did. That had to be so very uncomfortable for them. Especially the ones close to her..
@@SammySam316 I would say that Hughes did a lot of talking to the jury too.
@@YukonAML right!! That's the one I felt did that too.
I never saw one tear. She tried to cry in her interviews, too, but couldn’t.
You are wrong - the implication of the Op-Ed was that by painting herself as a victim of domestic abuse/sexual violation, she implied that Johnny was the abuser. If Johnny’s team proves that Amber was actually the abuser, they successfully prove her statements were false and defamatory
not really, they can both be abusive towards each other, which would make both 'victims' as well. It depends on the framing of the question. Mashing both competing sets of allegations together created more of a framework for an 'exclusive' finding of abuse, but this juror hinted that perhaps they didn't, but still awarded him the win based on other things (such as punishing her for how much of a liar she was)
@@greebj to represent survivor of abuse while knowingly abusing your spouse is in itself disingenuous. Glad that the jury applied their common sense.
I don't find it interesting or questionable at all that the jury used "the exact same wording or phrases" or had the "exact same questions" as the public, because the jury IS the public.
Congratulations from the UK on your much-deserved Young Lawyers Presidency! you are a shining star.
#heard_enough
The article also said the jury discounted ALL witnesses that were employees, friends, family and paid experts.
Where I can read the article?
I just searched "Depp juror GMA article" and found it but I'm sure you could find it on Twitter too.
The news reporter started out by saying “we agreed not to reveal the jurors name or juror number” which indicates that the juror probably showed it to the news company but asked they wouldn’t share that info.
The problem is, some of the testimony was so obvious, it makes sense that the jury would perceive things the way the public did. But they would have seen it more clearly, because they were there, and only s few feet away from the witness stand.
I also believed that her legal team had coached her to face the jury because EVERY one of their witnesses faced the jury while the Depp witnesses seemed to do a bit of both. Some of the Depp witnesses looked mostly at the jury but others rarely looked at the jury. Heard’s witnesses all faced the jury even when it felt awkward!
the "staring at the jury part" is definetely I noticed basically every witness for her do. she was the worst by far, but quite consistently all of them forced themselves to answer questions to the jury.
Maybe the reason for that is that Elaine kept saying "tell the jury X" and "explain to the jury Y".
Spot on 👏 I noticed the same thing; they didn't do it as much as AH but it was very noticeable with all of her witnesses vs JDs. This IMO was direction from the legal team not AH.
Camille hammered the bizarreness of gifting the knife in court too. Everything the alleged jury is saying was presented to them.
The thing that made me disbelief her was how extreme she was in the descriptions of abuse, she also has no concept of biology, I have gone in for a biopsy taken from my lady bits and it was a small surgical cut and I could hardly walk out and peeing was not fun for about 2 weeks.
she stole that story from an actual murder where a woman was disemboweled by her husband for calling out her ex husbands name during sex twice. they were drunk and he had an explosive temper
Anything outside the court room could’ve been the people in the streets saying Justice For Johnny.
I wouldn't mention TikTok, Reddit, ect. They are social media forums my kids use. Out of sight, out of mind.
The jurors did not have to hear your mock closing to come to the obvious conclusion.
When reading the article, you missed the part where the juror said they dismissed testimony of family members, friends, and any paid experts or employees. That leaves Amber with nothing except her testimony to support her.
That does sound a little weird to be fair. Isn't that the point of expert witnesses? Though also to be fair, most of Amber's witnesses were pretty successfully discredited by the way they behaved and answered on cross-examination. Most didn't say anything either useful, believable or objective that helped her side.
@@holysecret2They are free to dismiss any testimony that they want according to the instructions for the jury. In this case, they might have thought all those testimonies could be biased.
@@holysecret2 I will second what Monique said. With the high stakes and the amount of money, I can understand not even wanting to risk taking into account potential biased testimony. Do keep in mind there were still a lot of witnesses that did not fall into those categories like the hotel manager or the TMZ guy.
Of course you've got to remember, this guy and all the other jurors have been free to look at social media since their release from the trial -- so some of this stuff may be reaction to what has been seen or heard since the end of the trial.
Also, from the limited information we have, a lot of the jury were in their late 30s or in their 40s. Most of this age group usually only use twitter and Facebook and not really tiktok
@@a33m3a The You Tube lawyers that went to the courthouse said it was a young jury. A lot of 20 to 30 year olds, a 40 year old, 2 that were maybe 50ish. I was afraid of the 20-30somethings only because life experience is important in a case like this but they got it right, for sure.
@@laurie6332 thankfully it doesn’t take a genius to see through Amber’s lies
@@a33m3a It really doesn’t. Her stories were so far fetched it was ridiculous. Not ever seeing a Dr for an assault from a “possibly broken bottle” that would have left horrible injuries was pretty easy to see the lie. All her stories were so fabricated and she is still out there saying “her truth until the day she dies”. She is in so deep now I think she actually believes herself now!
Crocodile tears has always meant your pretending to cry, doing the sounds, facial expressions yet no tears in sight! I used the saying on all my kids when they were little!
Here it goes nothing.
At this point everybody is abusive to each other in every single couple.
You can't walk away, you can't write a mean sms to a friend, you can't answer to a massive manipulative partner. All right let's shut down and stay alone.
You dear Peter are becoming ridiculous with this nonsense.
She is not a child, she is an adult and he did not hit her. Where the hell is the abuse?
And I am quite sure you didn't listen to the audio in their entirely.
Yes, exactly. Where tf. was Johnny abusive? So triggering
@@thomasjetter2683 He wasn't, it's a miracle he is still alive and kicking. Normally someone without the support team he had by now would be dead or in state of major depression. I do not want to put this pressure on any victim to feel as if you are an abuser, too. I think is unreal because if this applies to him it applies to everybody. This is the worst thing you can do to real victims. They say it loud without understanding this is what gives a victim PTSD!! 😥
The article is more thorough and fleshes out what this guy is saying. Definitely worth the read.
I'm extremely concerned that AH's lawyers are going to pick apart word for word what the juror said in order to end up discrediting the jury and the verdict. I was begging that no juror would speak out.
Appellate judges typically don't like to overturn jury verdicts. Jury decisions are typically only overturned when there's some kind of _major_ error in the jury instructions or something really egregious with the evidence/testimony allowed at trial. Quibbling over feelings a juror had, it's not going to cut it.
I knew a guy (I'll call him Joe), who had lost a criminal case for receiving stolen property. "Bob" sold Joe a stolen mower, and Joe was caught with the mower. BUT, Joe got his conviction overturned on appeal. The appellate court found the trial judge screwed up.
In the middle of his testimony, in the middle of trial, the judge started limiting what Joe was allowed to testify about. The judge said Joe couldn't talk about whether or not Bob told Joe that the mower was stolen. The judge said that's hearsay. The judge said Joe couldn't testify about how he never thought that the mower was stolen. As you can imagine, Joe's entire defense hinged on the claim that he that he didn't know the mower was stolen.
So, that's an example of what gets a jury verdict gets overturned. Even Ghislaine Maxwell couldn't get her verdict overturned, and a lot of people thought she had a surefire case for appeal.
Exactly for that reason I don't believe at all in that "jury". He said some strange things that Amber could use in her favor. I don't think he could say this in an interview that: both abused each other (that part made me to doubt in his veracity). We all know that some Mainstream media still support Amber...
@@estrellafarfalla1970 Fortunately, that's not what it says in the article with the juror's full statement. He said they fought like husband and wife, but she was the aggressor and Johnny never hit her.
@Laura K, for that reason what it was presented on the news made me doubt that it was said by a jury. That's why I don't believe what Mainstream media newscasts. they arrange the news the way they want the public to perceive it without providing the correct data.
@@estrellafarfalla1970 This is what the Juror said in full"They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”
According to Webster, crocodile tears means fake tears or pretentious tears.
mostly, most normal everyday person can spot a liar--especially a bad one- a mile off...
He yelled at her and called her names however I think anyone would have especially when they're unable to get out of the situation! I don't believe he ever hit her or SA'd her.
It seems the way that JD treats others, compared to the way AH seems to treat others says a lot. Simple, automatic niceties and considerations for others speaks volumes. A lot of that came out in the trial regardless of social media.
Her friends all yeeting her and not having been friends with her for years is a terrible red flag as well
The jury saw through Heard's theatrics. They saw her deposition in '16 sitting there cool as a cucumber, smirking. People get less emotional as time passes, not more. She didn't pass the fake crying audition- Public and jury agreed.
I just received my first jury summons! I find the law and courts so fascinating. I missed my calling clearly. I am excited to go through the jury process, but who knows if I will get chosen.
What about those “Mommy Dearest” eyebrows?!? 🤨 😂
I wish she would just go silently into the sunset…
The jury have to speak out to defend themselves since amber is all over the media claiming they all broke rules and read twitter etc.
So glad one of the jurors has spoken out! All that was mentioned was exactly what those of us who actually watched the trial thought!!
I hope this shuts up the mainstream media and Amber Heard and her team
doubt it, looks like she is all in on this. Bit stupid IMO given it is his choice how hard he chases her for the $8.35M+costs.
Congratulations, Peter on your appointment to chairman of the young defense lawyers board!
If a person is pushed to a certain point I think they can only take so much, go to another room, leave the house etcetera. You will eventually verbally lash out, break things, or overindulge to cope. I don't think once she got started she ever let up so of course when someone is verbally trashing you at some point something is going to come out of your mouth as well. If you are keeping your composure and not get physical in return you may resort to hitting objects. We have no way of knowing where or how this ran off the rails and how much he swallowed down before he started to respond back. I have zero belief he ever hit her and many conversations he is trying to speak rationally and she continues off the deep end. He wanted out after 15 months so he was finding no joy in these altercations. She however did in my opinion Vicki
Ok so I know for a fact whenever I was a kid and “crying” really hard in a fake way my mom would always taunt me “ohhhh you pooor thing show me those crocodile tears”. No tears are needed. In fact amber is a perfect example. Just imagine a 5 year old throwing a fit “crying” to get their way but all of the emotional display is fake.
I was in the middle of interviewing someone for an article when this popped up and all I wanted to do was end the interview. Love your channel and perspective
As an actual survivor who battles CPTSD every day.. I find her beyond offensive .
You're very good. Thank you. CONGRATS on being the young lawyer chair 👏👏👏❤️
A person with the weight of truth on their side does not need sharp elbows, just as the jury observed about the lawyers and reacted accordingly with their verdict in Johnny Depp's favor.
For those of you wondering if this *"abusive to eachother"* line, would help Amber's appeal, no it will not at all. Here's why.
The jury was not given jury instructions defining abuse or what type of abuse they must believe. Rotternborn tried to pigeonhole them into HIS wide definition of abuse. Whereas Camille said that the jury should determine her claims in context the op-ed born from her claims in the TRO where she accused him of *PHYSICAL* abuse. It's clear that the jury used Camille's definition she presented to them in her rebutal closings and they all agreed that Amber's statement which alluded to physical abuse since that is what she *publically* accused Johnny Depp of in her TRO which was made public was false. The jury can believe which ever lawyer's definition of abuse in that context is since there are no jury instructions stating otherwise. If the jury had to believe only Rotternborn's definition of abuse then when Amber and her team attempted to dismiss Johnny's case mid-trial, it would have been successful but the judge denied it and left it up to the jury to decide what lawyer's definition of abuse they choose to believe.
I hope I didn't confuse y'all even more, but look at Camille's rebutal closing argument to further understand
This is whole thing the Juror said"They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”
Perfectly said excellent comment you did not confuse me thank you
As that Umbrella Guy pointed out, the part about “they both were abusive” isn’t in quotes in the GMA article.
That’s an editorial summary to build a desired narrative by the author of the piece, not the Juror, based on the next actual quote of “they had their husband and wife arguments, they both yelled at each other”.
Like LawTube and Roddenborn tried to do, the GMA author is pretending you can conflate verbal and physical abuse as the same thing and just call it all abuse, which is ridiculous, because physical abuse can carry a prison sentence, verbal abuse does not.
They can both be a form of abuse, but you CANNOT conflate them as “the same thing”.
Looking handsome today lol. My husband was an attorney and I was his paralegal. He past away a few years ago but I LOVE legal stuff. Thank you and congratulations on your nomination.
I guess he means she’s the aggressor not him, in the way he did not abuse her, she said he physically and sexually abused her, so she defamed him.
Absolutely not Johnny wasn't abusive he was totally the victim. Amber is dangerous 😳if she doesn't get help she will do worse to her next victim. 🙈
Yes, I really cannot comprehend how Johnny was abusive too. It doesn't make sense
*Also Congrats Peter. 🎈. Only Law Channel I watch.
125K 🙌🏼🙌🏼🥳 Congrats on all accomplishments today! Very much deserved . Thank you for all you do💙
But Peter, if you read the quotes as you say you do, he did say “We ONLY looked at the evidence.”
This juror is spot on.
This intro is still so cool to me. The tape on the beard gets me every time. Thanks for keeping it around!
I grew up with the saying crocodile tears it means all sounds but no tears
This is the full explanation of the juror,
"They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”
Woah! Looking too sharp here 😍 well done on your induction too, well deserved!
Again a very fair analysis and this is why your channel is amazing.
I appreciate you. Love talking about the law and the cases you follow!
Yes, they just assumed it. They would naturally think that she followed her lawyers advice.
I'll tell you why I think he blamed AHs lawyers for the constant looking at the jury. It's because EVERY SINGLE live witness of AHs did the same thing, while JDs witnesses didn't. It was obviously on instruction from her legal team, because it was consistent with EVERY witness on her side.
People can be in serious pain and still shed no tears. It doesn't follow that if there are no tears then there is no distress. However, it's obvious she was exaggerating and over-acting in her own drama and that was a big mistake. She should have kept it real.
That's so true, you would also show other convincing reactions to the pain even if not crying that align with true distress. If your mannerisms are incongruous to the level of trauma it's obvious. She was just as dramatic talking about her dog stepping on a bee as she was being assaulted by a bottle... I think we were all looking for signs of true emotion vs exaggeration by looking for tears when she appeared to cry because it seemed unnatural.
You need to read the GMA article from yesterday. The juror said so much more
I think taking into account anything outside the courtroom would also mean the people in the streets.
You ask "How does he know Heard's legal team has been advising her to do that. That makes me uncomfortable."
It's been 2.5 weeks since the verdict. They've been allowed to view outside information since they were released. They easily could find that out without having done so during the trial.
Besides, they are her lawyers. It's a reasonable inference that they would have coached her on how to present herself.
Congrats! And Thank u for making all of this easy to understand... 🙏🏼 I look fwd to your breakdowns 👌🏼
Excellent insight and comments Peter. Always adding value
thank you...always love your input.
Congratulations Peter and I just wanted to say thank you for the way you present topics. I listen to a cpl more channels on here and yours is my favourite because you let us listen to your clips with minimal, only what’s needed to explain what’s going on, input. It drives me crazy when I’m trying to listen to clips and then the channel owner jumps in with conversations that go on and on and then I forget what was said on the clips and have to keep going back to remind myself where the clip left of then fast forward again lol. So thank you so much.😊
Congratulations xx
Enjoy you you tube and the breakdown of the trail... Keep it up
Congrats!!
Could AH team use this as a way to appeal because the juror said “they thought both were abusive?”
They can but useless.
This is what the Juror said in full"They had their husband-wife arguments. They were both yelling at each other,I don’t think that makes either of them right or wrong. That’s what you do when you get into an argument, I guess. But to rise to the level of what she was claiming, there wasn’t enough or any evidence that really supported what she was saying.”
I really appreciate your fairness and kindness. It’s so refreshing. Congratulations on your induction. Well deserved, I’m sure. I’m so happy to have found your channel. Also, you look like my son, and just as beautiful. There. I said it. 😉
Our boys must be twins!! 😂😂
He is a very handsome man for sure! My favorite social media lawyer by far!
The world was "sequestered" for 2 years. Never forget.
The marriage was short. The aftermath feels endless. Thank you and congratulations.
Dang can't believe I missed this live. You make things so much more interesting. Also congrats on your new position.
What's up handsome!? Love the tie! Thxs for poppin up for us! Great job!
So great to see you having fun, being on vacation/conference and checking in shows how much passion you have for what you do! Thank you for the education :)
Thank you for your great answers! You've answered many of my questions. Very much appreciated! God bless! ❤️👍
I am sure others mentioned it, but the article does show how the reporter edited some of the quotes and strung different parts together.
There’s a part 3 on Peacock now. It’s Thursday evening.
It’s frustrating to me that we get an excerpted version of that interview in the article. Anything inside quotes is what the juror actually said, and anything not inside quotes is Gma putting their spin on it. I would like them to just give it to us in entirety; quotes only.
For instance the cocaine comment was from the news station not the juror. And the poor advice comment was not in quotes, so that also was the author of the article. The only thing in quotes about that is the juror saying, “All of us were very uncomfortable.” So we don’t truly know what he said was uncomfortable. Just give us the facts please, GMA.
Would be interested to know it The Sun has made any comment on the verdict. If the UK trial could be appealed, they could be pooping in their beds now
Interesting thank you for vid and well done, well deserved....🍾🏆🥇
Soooo happy for you! 🎉 well deserved! 🥳
I have Facebook but never signed up for Twitter or tictok
Thank You. I learn sooooo much!
Like the way you explain to us what the law is. Thank you for doing this.
As someone who is taking a massive step back from social media since 2020, I have never had TikTok account, And while I have a Twitter account I never use it. My boyfriend is a social media user. He does use Twitter and Facebook every day and never saw anything about the Depp heard trial because it’s not something his algorithms would bring up. It is absolutely very easy to not have seen anything about this case. It’s just another example of her ego, in my opinion.
Exactly. I know with my UA-cam, I see things that they obviously know I am interested in. That’s about all I see. I even think sometimes I wish that they would show me something else that I might be interested in. If you want to see something different you usually have to type something in and then you will start seeing a lot of that stuff.
Elaine was always telling Amber to please tell the jury… and then she would turn and look at them. I wonder if thats what he meant?