A verdict has been made, but the final word is far from over. The defamation trial between Amber Heard and her ex-husband Johnny Depp lasted six grueling weeks. Then the actor walked out of the hall as a big winner. A fact that Heard refuses to accept. She made that clear early on, now she seems to have created facts. As the trade journal “Deadline.com” reports with reference to court documents, the US actress’ legal team is said to have informed the court in Fairfax County, Virginia on Thursday that she will appeal.
The actress’ spokesperson told TMZ.com that the court had made a mistake and prevented a “fair” verdict. Depp’s representatives, on the other hand, were confident that the verdict would remain in favor of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star. The jury made a “clear and unanimous” verdict, a spokesman for the actor said on Thursday, according to “Variety”.
In early June, after a six-week defamation trial in which the ex-husbands had accused themselves of domestic violence, the jury largely sided with Depp – but also agreed with Heard on some counts. She has to pay Depp more than $10 million in damages for defamation. Depp, in turn, owes her two million dollars for statements by his ex-lawyer that are said to have damaged Heard’s reputation, according to the jury’s decision.
At the core of the civil lawsuit filed by Depp was a 2018 comment published by the Washington Post in which Heard described himself as a victim of domestic violence. Last week, Heard’s motion to have the verdict set aside due to possible procedural errors failed. Judge Penney Azcarate declined to overturn the verdict and related claims for damages.
Heard’s attorneys had argued that the identity of one of the seven jurors had not been verified. Accordingly, a younger man belonged to the jury, although his father had been written to as a potential juror with the same name and address. Azcarate, on the other hand, found that the jury had met all the requirements and had been confirmed by both sides before the trial began. There is no evidence of fraud or other violations of the law, the judge wrote in her reasoning.
