The public has apparently taken Depp's side: There is no completely clear evidence - as is often the case in domestic violence cases.
FAIRFAX - In Fairfax County, Virginia, Johnny Depp is suing his ex-wife, Amber Heard, for $50 million in damages for defamation.
She has filed a counterclaim for over 100 million euros.
The lawsuit was prompted by an article in the Washington Post in which, without naming Depp, she wrote about experiences of domestic violence just a few months after the marriage ended.
Depp has challenged Heard's alleged fabricated statements that severely damaged his reputation and career as an actor: As a result of the published article, he lost his roles in the films Pirates of the Caribbean 5 and Fantastic Beasts.
Trial of Johnny Depp against Amber Heard: Public opinion completely convinced of Depp's innocence
There have been few legal proceedings in the field of personal rights violations - yes, probably at all - that have been followed so closely by the media as the current compensation lawsuit between the actors Depp and Heard: The many intimate details provided the audience with entertainment value during the endless negotiations.
Right from the start, Depp's huge fan base gave him a distinct advantage over Heard, whose level of fame can't match the superstar status her ex-husband has built up over decades.
The complete certainty of the public hits you on social media and surprises given the evidence presented so far in the trial.
Certainly, the trial has so far only revealed one toxic relationship in which Heard behaved in an extremely hurtful manner, as did Depp.
Tape recordings suggest that she became physically and verbally abusive towards her husband - as do tape recordings and text messages from Depp: "Worthless whore" and "ugly cunt", for example, he called her the year before the wedding, not according to how the recordings of the process can be seen.
The
Guardian
also quoted these statements in an article on Depp's verbal gaffes: The British court, which passed its judgment against Depp in 2020, accused him of a deeply rooted misogynistic attitude, because extreme statements were also documented about various ex-partners.
"Let's drown them before we burn them.
After that, I'm going to fuck her burned corpse to make sure she's really dead," he wrote to his friend Paul Bettany before the wedding.
Unlike the proven verbal violence, Heard's allegations of rape, like her other allegations of physical violence, are only supported by her own statements.
Video: Verbal Injuries - "Why are we always so close to the abyss when we argue?"
Depp trial proves only one thing for sure: Toxic relationship between the two parties
The case shows very impressively how destructive the dynamics of a hate relationship can be.
However, the audience is not primarily dismayed by the consequences of an unhealthy relationship, but clearly sees Depp as the victim.
Depp has evidently managed to win the public over to his side through the sympathy and affection he is sure to have in his fanbase.
His calmer demeanor in the process and better outreach by his PR team may also have helped.
The fact that Heard sometimes got carried away with statements and accusations that could be proven to be false was also celebrated by the public.
Now the verdict is near, in a mood that couldn't be more heated against Heard.
And this public opinion could definitely affect the verdict, because: According to US law, a jury of lay judges decides on all factual questions.
Only the legal questions will be decided by Judge Penny Azcarate.
This means that whether Depp's or Heard's statements are believed and which witness statements are evaluated and how is decided - alone - by the lay judges as representatives of the people.
The entire assessment of the content of the process statements and connections is namely a "question of fact".
One legal question is whether the statement in the
Washington Post
made clear enough reference to Depp.
Legally proven by the "Sun" trial that Depp was violent?
There is still the question of whether the now deciding court in Virginia
could be bound by the outcome of the defamation case between Depp and the British newspaper
The Sun , which was decided in 2018.
At the time, Depp had sued the editor-in-chief and publisher of The Sun
tabloid
for defamation after Depp was
described as a "woman-beater" in a
Sun article.
When Depp's lawsuit went to court in London in 2020, the onus was on the newspaper to prove that the statement about Depp was correct.
The Sun
won the case.
The British court came to the conclusion that, after weighing the probabilities, the allegations were proven.
However, this judgment is not binding for the US court in Virginia, which is now deciding.
First, in the process at that time, a weighing of the probabilities was sufficient.
Depending on the procedural law system (which differs in individual areas of law, but also differs from country to country), an "overwhelming probability" may be sufficient for evidence or a fact may have to be established with absolute certainty for the court to be convinced.
In the procedure at that time, only an overriding probability was determined.
In addition, a court in the US could decide differently even with the complete certainty of the British court, since US courts are not bound by the results of another court system, in this case the British one.
Video: therapist talks about mutual physical violence
Trial of Amber Heard: US Constitution guarantees right to 'common' trial in lay court
The lay jury of Fairfax County District Court now has three counts of Heard's alleged damage to reputation in Depp's lawsuit: one for the print edition of the article, one for the online edition, and one for when Heard tweeted the article , reports the legal platform
Legal Tribune Online (lto.de)
.
The jury should determine that the statements made in Heard's newspaper article were "categorically and demonstrably false", i.e. categorically and demonstrably false.
In addition, it is requested to establish that Heard made the statements in the newspaper article with "actual malice", i.e. in the knowledge that their statements were false.
In Anglo-American countries, the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to hear one's case before a jury, reports the news
platform
lto.de.
The only requirement is that the amount in dispute is over $20,000 and one party is requesting a jury trial.
This was the case in Depp v. Heard.
A jury makes the decision unanimously, leaving the judge to conduct the hearing.
As a rule, a jury consists of six to twelve legal laymen who are selected by lottery from the voter and taxpayer register: each side of the process participants has the opportunity to reject a certain number of jurors without good reason, according
to
lto.de
Composition of a lay court.
Favorable for Johnny Depp: lay judges probably more susceptible to influence by “public opinion”
In the Depp v. Heard trial, the jury will consist of seven jurors and four alternates, who were selected on April 11, 2022 in the Fairfax, Virginia court,
lto.de
reports .
Questions of law will be decided by Judge Penny Azcarate.
However, it is up to the jury to determine all the facts relevant to the decision.
It is obvious that legal laypeople cannot decide according to legal categories (which they do not even know) when making decisions.
That does not necessarily make a decision about facts, i.e. which party and which witnesses are believed and which events, which facts are used as a basis, any less unjust.
Normal instinct and logic suffice, one might argue, to assess testimony and to check witness testimony for contradictions.
But in the end, years of legal practice (less so legal training) may produce a more neutral judge than the average citizen would be.
The fact that a lay judge who has little or no experience is more easily influenced by strong media and public opinion does not seem far-fetched.