FAIRFAX, Virginia –
A seven-member Virginia Civil Jury will reopen Tuesday’s defamation hearing against Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard. What the jury thinks will be very different from the public debate that covered the high-profile proceedings.
For six weeks, the testimony focused on details of alleged violence that Hurd says she suffered at the hands of Depp. Hurd outlined more than a dozen specific cases in which she says she was attacked by Depp.
Depp denies any physical or sexual abuse and says Hurd made the allegations to ruin Depp’s reputation. Legions of Depp’s online fans focused on their belief that Hurd was unfaithful and that this would determine the outcome.
But the case itself is a defamation suit. Depp is suing Hurd for $ 50 million in defamation in Fairfax County Court over a December 2018 post she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as a “public figure representing domestic violence.”
The article does not even mention Depp by name, but his lawyers say he was slanderous nonetheless. Most of the article discusses public policy, as it is related to domestic violence, and Hurd’s lawyers say it has the right to weigh the First Amendment.
However, in his closing arguments, Depp’s lawyer, Camille Vazquez, said Hurd’s rights to free speech were limited.
“The First Amendment does not protect lies that hurt and slander people,” she said.
Depp’s lawyers point to two passages in the article that they say clearly refer to Depp.
In the first passage, Hurd writes that “two years ago I became a public figure representing domestic violence and felt the full force of the anger of our culture.” Depp’s lawyers call it a clear reference to Depp, given that Hurd publicly accused Depp of domestic violence in 2016, two years before she wrote the article.
In a second passage, she states, “I had the rare view of seeing real-time institutions protect men accused of ill-treatment.” has written.)
The jury, which must decide unanimously on the verdict, must decide whether these passages in the Post are defamatory. And the sentence form gives them step-by-step instructions on how to determine this.
Hurd’s lawyers say they have presented a mountain of evidence that Hurd was abused. But they say that even if the jury somehow believes that she has never been abused even once, she still has to prevail in the case.
This is because the Defamation Act sets out several factors that must be taken into account. First, the alleged defamatory statements must relate to the applicant. Hurd’s lawyers said the article was not about Depp at all. He is not mentioned and is said to focus on Hurd’s experience of the consequences of speaking. These allegations remain objectively true, even if she was not in fact abused, her lawyers say.
However, Depp’s lawyers say the two passages are clear references to Depp, given the publicity surrounding the 2016 divorce proceedings.
Furthermore, since Depp is a public figure, Hurd can only be found guilty of defamation if the jury decides that Hurd acted with “real malice”, which requires clear and convincing evidence that she or she knew it was false. , or that she acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Hurd J.’s lawyer. Benjamin Rothenborn said in closing remarks Friday that Hurd carefully reviewed drafts of the article – the first draft was written not by her but by the American Civil Liberties Union – with her lawyers to make sure it was legally accepted. collection. Rothenborn said the fact alone was sufficient evidence that she had not acted with genuine malice.
As for the violence itself, Depp’s lawyers tried to suggest to the jury that if they thought Hurd was lying or embellishing any of his allegations of abuse, that she could not be trusted and that all her allegations of abuse should be rejected as unreliable.
“Either you believe in everything or none of it,” Vazquez said. “Either she is a victim of ugly, horrible violence, or she is a woman who is ready to say absolutely anything.
In conclusion, Hurd Rothenborn said that scolding for evidence of Hurd’s abuse ignored the fact that there was vast evidence on her behalf and sent a dangerous message to victims of domestic violence.
“If you didn’t take pictures, that didn’t happen,” Rothenborn said. “If you took pictures, they are fake. If you haven’t told your friends, they’re lying. If you tell your friends, they are part of the scam. “
And he rejected Vazquez’s suggestion that if the jury thought Hurd could embellish just one act of abuse, they should ignore everything she said. He said Depp’s defamation request should fail if Hurd had suffered a single incident of abuse.
“They’re trying to trick you into thinking that Amber has to be perfect to win,” Rothenborn said.
Add Comment