THEY CAN SMELL LIES.
>> Sean: NANCY GRACE, ALWAYS
GREAT TO HAVE YOU.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR JONATHAN TURLEY, DEPP
WALKS AWAY IN A FAR GREATER
VICTORY IN GENOCIDE’S
ALLEGATIONS.
THE ACLU HELPED WRITE THE
DEFAMATORY COLUMN.
THIS WILL NOW MAGNIFY CRITICISM
OF THE ROLE OF THE ACLU.
HERE WITH MORE AS LAW PROFESSOR,
FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR JONATHAN
TURLEY.
I FOUND YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE
ACLU INTERESTING, BUT ALSO, TWO
THINGS REALLY STRUCK ME.
NUMBER ONE, IT WAS HER
ADMISSION, WELL, I DID NOT PUNCH
YOU, BUT I HIT YOU.
THE ALLOCATION OF DEFECATING IN
ONE’S BED, AND THIS NOTION SHE
WAS COMPLAINING ON ONE OF THE
TAPES THAT HE WOULD WALK INTO
ANOTHER ROOM AND THEN ANOTHER
ROOM AND ANOTHER ROOM, WHICH
INDICATED TO ME THAT HE WAS
TRYING TO DE-ESCALATE.
IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION?
>> WELL, NOT ONLY IS A FAIR
INTERPRETATION, IT SEEMS TO BE
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JURY.
THIS IS A TRIAL TURNED ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY ON CREDIBILITY, AND
THE JURY CLEARLY DID NOT FIND
HER VERY CREDIBLE, IN FACT, THEY
FOUND HER CULPABLE, JUDGING FROM
THIS RULING.
THE KEY TO REMEMBER IS AS A
PUBLIC FIGURE -- AND BOTH OF
THEM ARE PUBLIC FIGURES -- THERE
WAS A HIGHER STANDARD, A HIGHER
BURDEN OF PROOF, CALLED ACTUAL
MALICE.
THIS JURY FOUND THAT NOT ONLY
WAS SHE SAYING SOMETHING THAT
WAS FULL’S, BUT SHE DID IT WITH
MALICE, AND HE REALLY RAN THE
TABLE ON THESE COUNTS.
THEY FOUND FOR EVERY ONE OF
THESE ALLEGATIONS, SO THEY
CLEARLY DID REJECT HER
ALLEGATIONS.
MANY OF US NOTED THAT SHE DID
NOT COME ACROSS VERY WELL ON THE
STAND.
>> Sean: WHAT DID YOU THINK --
WHY DO YOU THINK THE OTHER LOSER
IN THE CASE IS THE ACLU, AND
WHILE THE JURY AWARDED
$5 MILLION IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
IT WAS REDUCED BY THE JUDGE TO
$350,000 BECAUSE THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, THEIR
LAW LIMITS PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THOSE
TWO THINGS?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE
NEVER BEEN A FAN OF THESE CAPS
ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
JURORS TEND TO GIVE PUNITIVE
DAMAGES IN A VERY SMALL NUMBER
OF CASES, LESS THAN 1%, BUT THEY
ARE THERE TO REGISTER A JURY’S
OUTRAGE, TO SAY THIS IS FAR
BEYOND THE PALE, THIS IS NOT
JUST DEFAMATION, IT IS WORTHY OF
SOMETHING MORE, AND I THINK
STATES LIKE VIRGINIA REALLY DO A
DISSERVICE BY HAVING THE LOWER
CAPS, I HAVE BEEN RADICAL OF
THESE CAPS FOR A LONG TIME.
NOW IN TERMS OF THE ACLU, MANY
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CRITICAL OF THE
ACLU FOR YEARS AND HOW IT HAS
CHANGED.
IT USED TO BE AN ORGANIZATION
WAS FOCUSED ON FREE SPEECH, DUE
PROCESS, AND THIS MISSION OF
PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
IT HAS BECOME MORE AND MORE
POLITICAL.
IT HAS DRIFTED.
IN THIS CASE, WE FOUND OUT ACLU
STAFFERS HELPED WRITE THIS
DEFAMATORY OPINION PIECE, AND
MANY OF US WERE SAYING, WHAT
WERE YOU EVEN DOING IN THIS
REALM?
WHY WERE YOU EVEN INVOLVED?
AND THE ACLU SELECTED HER AS
THEIR SPOKESPERSON FOR ABUSE.
AND THEY JUST SIMPLY SEEMED TO
ACCEPT HER ALLEGATIONS AND
REJECT THE CLAIMS OF DEPP THAT
HE WAS NOT AN ABUSER.
AND OF COURSE, THAT WAS THE
RESPONSE OF HOLLYWOOD AND THE
MEDIA.
WE HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE.
NOW IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THIS IS
GOING TO BE A REDEMPTIVE MOMENT
FOR DEPP.
YOU KNOW, ONCE TAGGED IN THAT
WAY, IT IS HARD TO BE UNTAGGED,
BUT THE ACLU REALLY DOES
DESERVE -- REALLY A FRONT ROW
SEAT IN TERMS OF BLAME.
THEY PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE,
THEY HELPED DRAFT A DEFAMATORY
STATEMENT, THEY DISREGARDED THE
COUNTERVAILING ARGUMENTS OF
DEPP, THE POSSIBILITY HE MIGHT
BE INNOCENT, AND ELEVATED THIS
PERSON AS THE PRESUMPTIVE --