It has only been a month since the verdict on the Amber Heard v Johnny Depp case was declared but there seems to be no end in sight to the whole debacle. It has been reported that the appeal process has been initiated by Heard’s legal team.
The filings from Courthouse TV revealed that Amber Heard’s legal team has presented an argument alleging that there were legal reasoning problems in the verdict and the jury selection process had discrepancies as well. Another claim made by Heard’s lawyers says that the amount awarded to Depp as damages for the defamation lawsuit was excessive.
Not enough evidence: Amber Heard and her legal team
As far as the original verdict is concerned, Depp won all three of his claims and the Jury declared that $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages were due to the Pirates of the Caribbean actor. But Virginia state law resulted in the punitive damages getting capped at $350,000.
Amber Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages for her counterclaim. Her legal team claims that there is no strong evidence to support the monetary amount awarded to Depp, further alleging that the verdict is inconsistent – appealing to get it overturned.
Heard’s Washington Post op-ed was also a point in the legal team’s appeal. Their claim says that Depp and his legal team failed to prove any malicious intent in Amber Heard’s op-ed.
A liar in the jury?
An excerpt from the document that Amber Heard’s legal team intends to use for appealing the jury’s verdict says:
“The jury’s verdict was obviously influenced by Mr. Depp’s pleas in the face of the Court’s preclusion of Ms. Heard’s introduction of evidence that Mr. Depp had, in fact, already been tried in the Court of his choice for committing not just one act of domestic abuse – all that was needed in this case for a defense verdict – but 12 acts of domestic violence, including sexual violence”.
The most peculiar fact that stands out in the appeal is the request for an investigation of Juror 15. Heard’s lawyers have alleged that this person has lied to the court regarding their age. The common knowledge was that the person was born in 1945 but a piece of information made public has revealed that the person was in fact born in 1970, and not 1945.
If the court finds some fodder in this hay, we might soon see a sequel to the real-life courtroom drama.