Amber was found guilty on all three charges by a Virginia civil jury on Wednesday, finding that Heard not only uttered false and defamatory claims but also did so with “actual malice,” a stricter standard for cases involving public personalities. The jury decided that Depp deserved more than $10 million.
However, Depp’s win was not complete. Part of Heard’s counterclaim was also found valid by the jury. They dismissed two of Heard’s three accusations but decided that a Depp lawyer had defamed her by accusing her of roughing up their flat to make it appear worse for cops. The jury granted her $2 million.
The jury found the significantly larger weight of the evidence shows statements made in Amber Heard’s 2018 Washington Post op-ed were false and made with a malicious intent to harm Depp, awarding Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, which will be reduced to $350,000 under Virginia State law.
However, the jury found that Depp’s counsel made false and defamatory claims about Heard and awarded her $2 million in compensatory damages.
COUNTS AGAINST HEARD
Jurors assessed whether the online headline of Depp’s op-ed in The Washington Post defamed him: “I spoke out against sexual abuse and was met with our culture’s wrath. This must change.”
Lawyers for Heard said she didn’t compose the headline.
Jurors determined, however, that Heard “created or published” it and that it was defamatory.
“Then, two years ago, I became a media personality symbolizing domestic violence. I felt the full power of our culture’s hatred for women who speak up,” the third paragraph of the op-ed read.
Given that Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic abuse in 2016, Depp’s attorneys contended it referred to him.
Heard’s lawyers argued that a mound of evidence revealed Heard had been mistreated multiple times and that only one instance of verified abuse would render the line non-defamatory. They also contended that the remark was objectively true because it focused on Heard’s experience speaking out rather than Depp.
“I had the uncommon vantage position of observing, in real-time, how institutions shield men accused of abuse,” Heard wrote in a second section of the op-ed.
It indeed referred to Depp, according to Depp’s counsel.
Moreover, the jury determined that Heard defamed Depp with “actual malice” – that is, there was clear and persuasive evidence that Heard either knew it was untrue or behaved with reckless disregard for the truth.
COUNTS AGAINST DEPP
Heard filed three counts of defamation against Depp, alleging that his former attorney Adam Waldman had repeatedly defamed her by calling Heard’s abuse allegations a fake. Heard claimed that the remarks had harmed her career.
Jurors considered Waldman’s remark, published on The Daily Mail’s website on April 8, 2020: “Depending on their requirements, Amber Heard and her media allies deploy false sexual-violence charges as both a sword and a shield. They’ve chosen some of her sexual-violence fabrication ‘facts’ to use as the sword, inflicting them on the general public and Mr Depp.” The jury decided that Heard’s lawyers had failed to prove all of the elements of slander.
Heard won her single case against Waldman, who accused Heard and her pals of faking abuse charges.
The statement reads: “Simply put, this was a ruse set-up. They tried to frame Mr Depp by phoning the cops, but the initial attempt failed. Officers arrived at the penthouses, conducted a thorough check and interview, and left after observing no damage to the face or property. So Amber and her buddies poured some wine and roughed up the house, got their stories straightened out with the help of a lawyer and PR, and then redialed 911.”
Though she goes out in public with a mark on her face a few days later seeking a temporary restraining order, two police testified that they saw no signs Heard was wounded. Waldman’s statement was false and defamatory, and he behaved with actual malice. Jurors agreed with Heard’s counsel.
Heard testified for days, explaining various forms of abuse she believes Depp inflicted on her – perhaps she went too far.
However, Depp and, perhaps more importantly, other witnesses like Kate Moss, whom the jury may have deemed more believable due to their perceived neutrality, disputed much of her testimony.