A Virginia judge this afternoon rejected actress Amber Heard’s request to overturn the verdict in a libel trial that awarded her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, more than $ 10 million.

Depp won his libel suit against Heard last month in a civil lawsuit that generated widespread interest in the United States and abroad. Heard received lesser compensation, $ 2 million, in a counter suit filed against Depp.

The movement of Ambra

This month, Heard filed a motion asking for the verdict to be quashed or a mistrial to be declared. Her lawyers cited multiple factors, including an apparent false identity case by one of the jurors.

In a written order, Judge Penney Azcarate dismissed all of Heard’s allegations and said the juror question was irrelevant and that Heard was unable to prove that it affected the trial.

“The juror passed, attended the trial, deliberated and reached a verdict. The only evidence before this court is that that juror and all jurors have followed their oaths, instructions and court orders. This court is attached to the jury’s competent decision, ” Azcarate wrote.

Depp’s cause

Depp is suing for $ 50 million in Fairfax County after Heard published an editorial in the Washington Post on domestic violence in which she referred to herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The article never mentioned Depp by her name, but her attorneys said several passages of the text implicitly slandered him by referring to the well-known abuse allegations made by Heard in 2016 when she filed for divorce.

Heard then filed a $ 100 million counterclaim, including for defamation. By the time the case went to trial, his counterclaim had been reduced to a few statements from one of Depp’s lawyers, who claimed Heard’s allegations were a hoax.

The jury awarded Depp $ 15 million and Heard $ 2 million in his counterclaim. The award was reduced from $ 15 million to $ 10.35 million because Virginia law limits punitive damages to $ 350,000.

the other charges

The judge did not state his arguments for dismissing Heard’s other allegations in his order on Wednesday.

Among other things, Heard argued that the $ 10 million verdict was not supported by the facts and that it appears to show that the jury did not focus on the aftermath of the 2018 editorial, as it should have, but rather loosely on the damage. that Depp’s reputation suffered due to the alleged abuse.

Heard’s attorneys also said the verdict in favor of Depp and the verdict in favor of Heard are at odds and make no sense.

“The jury’s conflicting verdicts are inconsistent and irreconcilable,” wrote his lawyers Elaine Bredehoft and Benjamin Rottenborn.

Heard’s lawyers also challenged the verdict on the grounds that one of the seven jurors who decided the case never went to court. According to court documents, a 77-year-old county resident was called to serve on the jury. Instead, his son, who has the same name and lives at the same address, has come forward. The son served as a jury.

Heard’s attorneys have argued that Virginia law is strict on the identity of jurors, and in the event of misidentification, the trial can be declared void. They presented no evidence that the 52-year-old son, identified in court documents only as a jury (hash), 15 tried to replace the father on purpose or with malicious intent, but argued that this possibility should not be ignored.

“The court cannot assume, as requested by Mr. Depp, that the apparently inappropriate service of Juror 15 was an innocent mistake. It may have been a deliberate attempt to serve on a jury in a major case,” the attorneys wrote. Heard.

next steps

Heard can still appeal the verdict in the Virginia Court of Appeals. The issues raised before the appeals court may be different from those rejected Wednesday by Azcarate.

In a separate order, the judge ordered the release of dozens of court documents, including motions aimed at enforcing independent medical reviews for Depp and Heard. Some documents will remain confidential, primarily because they contain personal contact information or personal clinical information.

“In this matter, both sides have sued each other, thus opening up to the public forum of a trial. The court files are public information,” Azcarate wrote.

mfb