- We have a verdict
in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard case.
And like everything in the trial itself,
it's controversial.
The jury ruled in favor of Johnny Depp
in his libel suit against Amber Heard.
Depp sued his former wife
for writing about being a domestic abuse victim
because he said he never abused her.
The jury awarded Depp $15 million in damages,
$10 million in compensatory damages
and $5 million in punitive damages.
The jury also ruled in favor of Amber Heard
on one of her counterclaims against Depp.
She alleged that Depp directed
a smear campaign against her,
having his ex-lawyer saying
she fabricated the evidence of her abuse.
The jury awarded her $2 million
in compensatory damages
and nothing in punitives.
So, at the end of the day, they both win!
Hooray!
No, but seriously,
how can they both have defamed each other?
Let's dig into this verdict.
(light music)
Now, first of all,
and I hate that I have to say this,
no one is going to jail.
This is a civil case and no one is guilty.
People are liable in a civil case.
They are not guilty or not guilty,
despite what some punitive law professor has said.
This is a civil trial.
There's no guilt involved.
Now, in fairness,
about half the states
do have a criminal defamation statute,
including Virginia,
but this is not one of those cases.
It's just two people suing each other.
The state is not involved.
But as you probably know,
here we have two public figures
suing each other for defamation.
And when you have celebrities,
you generally have a higher standard of proof
to make your claim.
The law makes it difficult for public people
to win a defamation suit,
even if a published story contains inaccuracies.
In order for a public figure to win,
the jury has to find that the defendant
made statements about them with actual malice.
Actual malice means knowledge of the falsity,
or at a minimum,
a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement.
It has nothing to do with animosity.
Now, as you probably know,
Amber Heard wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post
that contained these sentences, quote,
"Then two years ago,
"I became a public figure representing domestic abuse,
"and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath
"for women who speak out."
And, quote, "I had the rare vantage point
"of seeing in real time,
"how institutions protect men accused of abuse."
Now, Johnny Depp challenged these sentences
and also the headline written
by The Washington Post itself, quote,
"Amber Heard: I spoke up about sexual violence
"and faced our culture's wrath.
"That has to change."
Depp sued Heard,
alleging these sentences were defamatory.
And during closing arguments,
Heard's lawyer told the jury
that if they believed Depp abused her,
even one time,
that he cannot prove defamation.
- [Lawyer] If Amber was abused by Mr. Depp,
even one time, then she wins.
- Now, during deliberations,
the jury had to evaluate
the evidence that they heard
over the six-week trial,
and apply the jury instructions
given to them by the judge.
With Depp's defamation claims,
they were looking at Instruction C,
which you can see here.
So, the jury had to decide
whether Heard made
or republished any of these statements,
these were false statements,
whether they harmed his reputation,
and whether Amber Heard acted with actual malice.
They answered, "Yes."
Yes, she said or republished these words.
Yes, they were false.
And yes, they hurt his reputation.
The jury likely decided everything that Amber Heard
said about abuse was false,
and that she did it
with reckless disregard for the truth.
And as a result,
Johnny Depp sustained
about $15 million in damages,
$10 million in compensatory damages,
which is meant to compensate him
for the damage that he actually suffered,
as well as $5 million in punitives
that is to punish Amber Heard for her statements.
Now, the judge cut the punitives down to $350,000,
bringing the total to $10.35 million.
Now those are obviously large numbers
but it kind of makes sense
in the context of Johnny Depp.
He is a famous movie star and he alleges,
probably truthfully,
that these allegations have really hurt his career
and hurt his ability to make
millions and millions of dollars.
So, it's entirely possible that he lost $10 million
as a result of the statements
that Amber Heard made against him.
And given the general nature of Heard's statements,
the fact that the jury found in Depp's favor
probably means that the jury likely didn't believe
any of Heard's substantive claims of abuse.
Now, some have argued that Heard got a raw deal
because her column did not mention Depp by name,
but Depp successfully argued that it was an example
of what's called defamation by implication,
because parts of the column referred
to the allegations of abuse
that she made against him
following their breakup in 2016.
And it's probably fair
to say that the general public
knew about Heard's connection to Depp,
and that they would've assumed
that the allegations made in the op-ed,
referred to Depp because of that connection
and that she was directing those statements
at Johnny Depp.
And there's plenty of law on this.
This is not unusual
for a defamation by implication case.
And that takes us to Amber Heard's counterclaims.
You'd think that if Heard defamed Depp,
then they would dismiss Heard's claims
and that would be the end of the story.
But what fun would that be?
As you know,
the jury also found that Depp defamed Heard,
but it looks like that relates to a statement
only tangentially related
to the main abuse statements.
Now, after Depp sued Heard in 2021,
she filed a counterclaim against him.
She said that Depp directed his ex-lawyer, Adam Waldman,
to make defamatory statements about her
including these three.
Statement A, quote,
"Amber Heard and her friends in the media
"used fake sexual violence allegations
"as both a sword and a shield,
"depending on their needs.
"They have selected some of her sexual violence
"hoax 'facts' as the sword,
"inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp."
Statement B, quote,
"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax.
"They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops
"but the first step didn't do the trick.
"The officers came to the penthouses,
"thoroughly searched and interviewed,
"and left after seeing no damage to face or property.
"So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine
"and roughed up the place,
"got their stories straight
"under the direction of a lawyer and publicist,
"and then placed a second call to 911."
Statement C, quote,
"We have reached the beginning of the end
"of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Mr. Depp."
And the jury reviewed the evidence,
and with respect
to at least one of these statements.
believed that that was the case.
Specifically, they decided that Statement B,
the long paragraph about
a specific incidence, was false.
The main facts about that incident
were relayed to the jury
by Heard and her friends,
and the very same people that the jury found
had completely made up things in order to hurt Depp.
Now, we'll need to hear
from the jury to understand
exactly what they were thinking,
but we can presume that the jury
reviewed the evidence
and concluded that Amber Heard and her friends
didn't orchestrate an abuse hoax on that occasion.
Maybe they didn't spill wine or rough up the place.
They didn't work with a lawyer or publicist.
They might not have gotten their stories straight.
If this is what the jury meant,
then they could be claiming
that the underlying incident
is still based on a lie,
but that Heard orchestrated the lie in a different way,
or that she was lying about other things
and not this thing.
But at the end of the day,
the jury awarded $2 million to Heard
for this particular falsity.
These same jurors probably found
that she acted with actual malice in concocting a hoax
that included fake bruises
and fake tears and fake claims.
And thus, statements A and C
were therefore not defamatory,
only Statement B,
which referred to a very
specific tangential incident.
So both Depp and Heard
were awarded compensatory damages.
These are things that are meant
to compensate a plaintiff
to be in the same position
that they would be
if they weren't injured.
Things like financial losses,
medical bills, lost income,
and reduced earning potential.
And a damage award can also consider
non-monetary losses as well,
like emotional pain or physical pain,
loss of companionship,
all of those would be considered compensatory damages.
But Johnny Depp was awarded punitive damages as well,
which are designed to warn others
and punish this particular defendant.
They are assessed when a jury
wants to punish someone
who acted totally outside
the bounds of appropriate conduct.
And they're only available in Virginia
if the defendant has acted wantonly, oppressively,
or with such malice
as to evince a spirit of malice
or criminal indifference to civil obligations.
But in Virginia,
punitive damages are capped at $350,000 by statute.
Now, the jury found that Amber Heard
had defamed Johnny Depp
and that her conduct satisfied
the very high standard
for punitive damages.
Now they awarded him a lot of money,
$5 million in punitive damages,
but the judge reduced
that damages award to $350,000,
as required by statute.
Now, the jury wouldn't have known that
going into deliberations.
That's to make sure that they don't shift all
of the punitive damages
into the compensatory damages award.
But after the verdict was reached,
the judge capped the amount that was required by law.
Tangentially, you might also hear lawyers referring
to the State Farm standard,
where punitive damages are capped
as a matter of constitutional law.
That's a Supreme Court case.
That doesn't apply here.
There was a specific statute in Virginia
that limited punitive damages to $350,000.
That doesn't really implicate
the State Farm Supreme Court case.
That being said,
after the punitive damages were capped,
Johnny Depp was entitled to $10.35 million,
though Amber Heard was awarded $2 million
in compensatory damages,
related to the Statement B
that we just talked about,
netting Johnny Depp $8.35 million
at the end of the day.
So, what's next?
Can Johnny Depp sue The Washington Post?
Well, sure, but it's incredibly unlikely that he'd win.
You can sue anyone for anything at anytime.
But there's no reason
to believe that The Washington Post
would've known of the falsity of the statements.
And on top of that,
The Washington Post simply
published Amber Heard's article.
The only part of the article that was written
by The Washington Post, was the headline,
"Amber Heard: I spoke up about sexual violence
"and faced our culture's wrath.
"That has to change."
Which more or less summarizes the things
that Amber Heard actually said.
So good luck proving knowledge
of falsity or recklessness
with respect to the truth
by The Washington Post itself.
Though given that the article is still online,
Depp might sue for an injunction
to take that article down.
But by that same token,
could Amber Heard sue the ACLU?
The Washington Post published Heard's op-ed
but the ACLU helped her write it.
Heard had promised to donate $7 million
from her divorce settlement to two charities,
including the ACLU.
And so far, she's only paid
the ACLU part of that money.
Could she claim that they did a bad job
of ghostwriting the op-ed, maybe negligence?
Well again, you can sue anyone for anything at anytime.
Sure, this is theoretically possible,
but it would be extremely complicated
and probably doomed,
though more tenuous arguments have been made.
Maybe Heard will use it to try and claw back
some of her donation, who knows?
Complete speculation.
But what about an appeal of the jury's verdict?
Amber Heard has vowed to appeal.
And even though Depp was also found
to have defamed Heard,
Depp was not surprisingly,
very pleased with the verdict.
Depp said that Heard's op-ed changed his whole life
in the blink of an eye,
but the jury had given his life back.
Now, Heard was not pleased with the verdict
and said that she was
"heartbroken that the mountain of evidence
"still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate
"power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband."
And although people talk about
what precedent this verdict sets,
what lawyers mean by precedent is different
from how regular people often use that word.
In the law, precedent is set
by published judicial opinions.
Legally speaking,
jury verdicts don't set any precedent whatsoever.
You can't cite to the Amber Heard case
and hope that some other jury or judge
will follow it.
But if the case goes up on appeal
and there is a written opinion,
that opinion would have precedential effect,
which is one reason, potentially,
the parties might settle before
the appeal is completed.
They might just do it to get rid of uncertainty
with what the Court of Appeal might or might not do.
But no doubt, when this case goes up on appeal,
you should read about it
in today's sponsor, Morning Brew,
because that's my favorite way to catch up
with pop culture and the news.
I've actually been subscribed
to Morning Brew for forever.
It's one of my absolute favorite newsletters
and I'm thrilled to tell you why.
Because Morning Brew,
if you didn't already know,
it is a free daily newsletter
delivered Monday through Sunday.
It gets you up to speed on business,
finance, tech, and law,
in just five minutes.
And it provides a fantastic quick survey
of the most important issues,
while being witty, irreverent and informative.
And did I mention, it's completely free?
This week, I learned all about
why my stocks are going down
and then I learned more about
why my stocks are going down,
and oh my God,
why are my stocks going down so much?
But I also learned about NFT insider trading at OpenSea,
US inflation, and the great American lifeguard shortage.
It's basically exactly the mix of news
that I'm actually interested in,
and stuff I didn't even know
that I wanted to know about.
And it's all written in a hilarious style.
Morning Brew is one of the few emails
that I actually open every day.
So Legal Eagles, this one is a complete no brainer.
Morning Brew is completely free
and it takes less than 15 seconds to subscribe.
Just click on the link that's on screen right now
or in the description,
to get Morning Brew for free.
And not only will you get a newsletter
that you'll actually read,
you'll actually help this channel too.
So click on the link below
to get Morning Brew right away.
And while you're at it,
click on this link
with all of my other legal videos.
So, click on this link or I'll see you in court.