New Delhi: Last week, a jury Government ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star Johnny Depp against ‘Aquaman’ actor Amber Heard in defamation lawsuit For an op-ed article she wrote Washington Post About domestic abuse.
Depp, II, v. Amber Laura Heard—a case that enthralled the United States for weeks—in Circuit Court in Fairfax County, found that 36-year-old Heard had defamed 58-year-old Depp when he Described himself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.
The jury awarded Depp a total of $15 million – $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. However, because punitive damages were automatically reduced to $350,000—the legal limit according to Virginia law—his actual loss was $10.35 million.
However, the jury also found that one of Depp’s attorneys defamed and honored Heard. $2 million in compensatory damages — in fact, a difference of over $8 million. due to test a social media hysteria and aired on television, resulting in massive support for Depp and public mockery of Heard.
The outcome of this case was quite different from a libel case that brought Depp, and LostAgainst British tabloids Sun To call her a “wife-beater” in one of his articles in 2020 less than two years ago.
The case was heard and decided by a single judge – unlike the trial in the US.
ThePrint explains what makes the tests and their results different in the two cases.
Read also: Johnny Depp-Amber Heard verdict redefines victimhood as relevant to the post-truth era
restraining order and matrimonial agreement
Depp, then 46, Allegedly Met the then 23-year-old Heard during the shooting of the film ‘The Rum Diary’ in 2009 documents Show that the two started living together around 2012 and got married in January 2015.
They separated after 15 months and Heard filed for divorce on 23 May 2016. The divorce proceedings turned into a media spectacle after Heard went to California state court on May 27, 2016, with bruises on her face and requiring a restraining order and an injunction against Depp. Depp will be attending a 52-week anger management course. He Told Court that she was afraid Depp would return to “terrorism” [her]physically and emotionally”, and that there had been previous domestic violence incidents, “including a serious one in December 2015 when she feared her life was in danger”.,
She obtained a temporary restraining order against Depp.
This provisional order was issued when Depp was not present or represented at the hearing, but dates were set for Depp to be able to present his case. However, that hearing never took place as the couple reached a settlement on 16 August 2016. One condition of this ‘marital settlement agreement’ was that the restraining order proceedings would be ‘dismissed with prejudice’ – meaning that the matter was settled once and for all, and could not be brought back to court.
Since Depp and Heard had no pre- or post-divorce agreement to split their finances, Depp paid Heard $7 million, which he wanted to donate as part of his divorce settlement. had promised.
‘Culture outbreak’
However, trouble started again when Deppo sued Heard for defamation for $50m over an article he wrote in March 2019 Washington Post,
its 2018. In personal opinion ‘I raised my voice against sexual violence – and faced the wrath of our culture. This has to change’, Heard did not name Depp but wrote that she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.
In response to Depp’s lawsuit, Heard counter suit filed for $100m. Although both Depp and Heard live in California, the case was heard in Virginia County where the Washington Post operates its printing press.
Amid shouts and slogans of “Johnny, Johnny, Johnny” outside the courtroom, a seven-member jury ruled in favor of Depp on three counts. Depp objected to the title of the op-ed, the line in which Heard referred to himself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse”, and the line in which Heard was referred to “in real time”. There was a rare vantage point of view, how institutions protect men accused of abuse”.
The jury members had to answer a series of questions In a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ – one of them was whether he thought Depp had proved that Heard acted with genuine malice.
there is real hatred range It is necessary to prove defamation – especially when it involves a public figure. Requires a person to prove that the defamatory statements were made with the knowledge that they were false, or with a reckless disregard of the truth. The jury answered ‘yes’ to all these questions.
However, it was found that Depp, through his attorney Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three statements that called his allegations “hoax.”
Read also: Virtual reality could become a big part of efforts to stop domestic violence
Deppo’s ‘The Monster Side’
by Depp. Exception taken for a story published in Sun About his film ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ in 2018. Article ‘Gone Potty How Can JK Rowling Be “Really Happy” Casting Wife Beater Johnny Depp in New Fantastic Beasts Film?’ Depp’s casting in the film was questioned despite allegations of domestic abuse. The title was changed to ‘Gone Potty’ after assault claims JK Rowling could be “really happy” to cast Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts movie?’ a day later.
Depp sued Sun for defamation in June 2018.
However, High Court Justice Andrew Nicholl (Queen’s Bench Division) found it that in November 2020 Sun proved that “what he published … was largely true”. The judge considered fourteen such incidents of domestic abuse in detail and found the charges “proven to a civil standard” in at least twelve of these incidents. The judge said he “found that the great majority of Mr. Heard’s alleged attacks by Mr. Depp have been proven to a civil standard”.
He also acknowledged Heard’s evidence that the allegations against Depp “had a negative impact on his career as an actor and activist”, and Accepted That such incidents of attack put Heard in “fear for his life”. The judge also acknowledged some instances to be “characteristic of Mr. Depp’s manner”, when the ‘monster’ side of his personality was dominant.
Before a UK judge, a recurring theme in Depp’s evidence was that Heard had fabricated the emails and text messages as a ‘hoax’ and that he had used them as an “insurance policy” in the event of a breakdown in the marriage. A “dossier” was made for him. But the judge dismissed the claims.
He also dismissed Heard’s “characterization” as a “gold digger”, saying that “donating $7 million to charity is hardly the kind of act one would expect from a gold digger”. “.
Why Depp lost in the UK but won in the US?
Depp lost the case in the UK despite the fact that defamation law there generally favored plaintiffs, even as he was charged libel tourism — a trend where people make a defamatory claim in a country that has the most chance of winning. Additionally, the UK does not have the same level of free speech protection as the US.
The difference between the laws of the two countries is that in the US, the burden of proof lies on the person filing the defamation claim, but in the UK, it lies with the defendant, making this harder.
In Depp’s case in the UK, the burden of proof lay with Sun, But in America, it was Depp who had to persuade The jury that not only discredited Heard, but did so out of malice. In other words, in the UK, plaintiffs have to show that a false and defamatory statement was made, but in the US they must also prove an additional element of genuine malice.
But what really turned the tide in Depp’s favor in the US was the contrasting single judge jury in the UK. experts have Thrown light on How Depp used a strategy called “deny, assault, and reverse victim and perpetrator” or “darvo”—a common defense tactic in sexual assault and domestic violence trials.
Experts say the tactic is “very, very effective against jurors”, although “lawyers and judges don’t fall for it” because they are trained to look at evidence.
In this case, Depp’s lawyers used tactics effectively, turning her into a victim and listening to the abuser.
Same strategy that was implemented in social media too – hashtags #justiceforjohnnydepp has 19 billion views on Tiktok trend on Twitter for weeks. As a result, the public’s attention was drawn to the trial – Election Allegedly showed that Americans showed more interest in courtroom drama than in the ongoing war in Ukraine or the landmark decision on abortion from the US Supreme Court any day.
Although jurors were instructed not to read about the case online, they were not isolated or isolated, and were allowed to keep their phones.
(This story has been updated.)
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Read also: Downside of dowry system – decision making power of women falls, domestic violence rises