DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST HIS EX-WIFE. JUDGE TELLING ATTORNE
J LET’S TAKE YOU BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. A VERDICT HAS BEEN EACH REACHED
IN DEPP VERSUS AMBER HERD.
A JUDGE ASKED THE JURY TO GO
BACK IN.
SEEMS LIKE THEY FILLED TOUT BAUR
WORK INCORRECTLY, HOPEFULLY THEY
HAVE THAT WORKED OUT AND WE
SHOULD BE HEARING A VERDICT
VERY, VERY SOON, HOPEFULLY.
AND WE’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WAIT HERE LOOKS LIKE OUR PICTURE
MAY HAVE FROZEN, WE CAN STILL
HEAR, SO LET’S LISTEN I
HEAR, SO LET’S LISTEN IN. >> MR. FOREPERSON IS THIS THE VERDICT OF THE JURY.
>> YES.
>> IS IT UNANIMOUS?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU, SIR JAMIE.
>> IN CIVIL CASE NUMBER CL
20192911 MR. DEPP’S CLAIM
AGAINST MS. HEARD, ONE, AS TO
THE STATEMENT APPEARING IN THE
ON-LINE OP-ED ENTITLED "AMBER
HEARD, I SPOKE UP AGAINST SEXUAL
VIOLENCE AND FACED OUR CULTURE’S
WRATH.
THAT HAS TO CHANGE "IN THE
"WASHINGTON POST" ON-LINE
EDITION" I SPOKE UP AGAINST
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND FACED OUR
CULTUREICE WRATH, THAT HAS TO
CHANGE, "DO YOU FIND MR. DEPP
HAS PROVEN ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
DEFAM 8?
-- DEFAMMAST?
ANSWER, YES.
HAS MR. DEPP PROVEN BY GREATER
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
STATEMENT WAS MADE OR PUBLISHED
BY MS. HEARD?
ANSWER, YES.
THE QUESTION, THE STATEMENT WAS
ABOUT MR. DEPP.
ANSWER, YES.
QUESTION.
THE STATEMENT WAS FALSE.
ANSWER, YES.
QUESTION, THE STATEMENT HAS A
DEFAMORY ABOUT MR. DEPP.
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION.
THE DEFAMORY IMPLICATION WAS
DESIGNED AND INTENDED BY
MS. HEARD.
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION: DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUND THE PUBLICATION OF THE
STATEMENT, IT CONVEYED A
DEFAMORY IMPLICATION TO SOMEONE
WHO SAW IT OTHER THAN THAN
MR. DEPP.
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION: DO YOU FIND THAT
MR. DEPP HAS PROVEN BY ACED IN
MALICE.
>> Answer: YES.
>> TWO AS FOR THE STATEMENT
APPEARING IN THE OP-ED
"TRANSFORMATIVE MOMENT FOR
WOMEN" IN WASHINGTON POST
EDITION AND OP-ED ON-LINE I "I
SPOKE UP AGAINST SEXUAL
VIOLENCE" AND FACED OUR CULTURE
WRATH THAT HAS TO CHANGE.
"THEN TWO YEARS AGO I BECAME A
PUBLIC FIGURE, REPRESENTING
DOMESTIC ABUSE AND I FELT THE
FULL FORCE OF OUR CULTURE’S
WRAGHTSD WRATH FOR WOMEN WHO
SPEAK OUT".
DO YOU FIND MR. DEPP HAS PROVEN
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAM 8?
>> Answer: YES.
HAS MR. DEPP PROVEN BY GREATER
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
QUESTION: THE STATEMENT WAS
MADE OR PUBLISHED BY MS. HEARD.
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION.
THE STATEMENT WAS ABOUT MR. DE
PE P.
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION: THE STATEMENT WAS
FALSE?
ANSWER: YES.
QUESTION: THE STATEMENT HAS A
DEFAMAORY STATEMENT ABOUT --
IMPLICATION ABOUT MR. DEPP:
ANSWER YES: YES QUESTION: WAS
BY MS. HEARD.
>> Answer: YES.
>> IT CONVEYED A DETAMAORY
IMPLICATION TO SOMEONE SAW IT
OTHER THAN MR. DEPP?
>> Answer: YES.
>> DO YOU FIND MR. DE PE P HAS
PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT MS. HEARD ACTED
WITH ACTUAL MALICE?
>> Answer: YES.
3.
AS TO THE STATEMENT, APPEARING
IN THE OP-ED ENTITLED "A
TRANSFORMATIVE MOMENT FOR WOMEN
IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" PRINT
EDITION" IN THE ON-LINE OP-ED,
AMBER HEARD "I SPOKE UP AGAINST
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND FACED OUR
CULTURE’S WRATH.
THAT HAS THAT TO CHANGE.
IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" ON-LINE
EDITION".
I HAD THE RARE ADVANTAGE POINT
OF SEEING IN REALTIME HOW
INSTITUTIONS PROTECT MEN ACCUSED
OF ABUSE".
DO YOU FIND THAT MR. DEPP HAS
PROVEN ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
DEFAMMAST?
>> Answer: YES.
HAS MR. DEPP PROVEN BAY GREATER
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
STATEMENT WAS MADE OR PUBLISH BY
MS. HEARD?
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION: THE STATEMENT WAS
ABOUT MR. DEPP?
>> Answer: YES.
QUESTION: THE STATEMENT WAS
FALSE?
ANSWER.
FALSE? ANSWER. YES.
ANSWER. YES. QUESTION: THE STATEMENT HAS A
DEFAMAT OTHER STATEMENT ABOUT
MR. DEPP.
>> Answer: YES.
>> THE DEFAMAT OTHER IMPLICATION
WAS DESIGNED BY MS. HEARD.
ANSWER.
>> Answer: YES.
IT CONVEYED A DEFAM ALT OTHER
IMPLICATION TO SOMEONE WHO SAW
IT OTHER THAN MR. DEPP.
>> Answer: YES.
DO YOU FIND MR. DEPP HAS PROVEN
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT MS. HEARD ACTED WITH ACTUAL
MALICE?
>> Answer: YES.
AS AGAINST AMBER HEARD, WE THE
JURY AWAY WARD COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNTS OF
$10 MILLION.
AS AGAINST AMBER HEARD, WE THE
JURY AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $5 MILLION.
IN CIVIL CASE NUMBER CL 2019
TWO-2911.
MS. HEARD’S CLAIM AGAINST
MR. DEPP: ONE, AS TO THE
STATEMENT APPEARING IN THE APRIL
EDITION OF THE DAILY MAIL "AMBER
HEARD AND HER FRIENDS IN THE
MEDIA USED FAKE SEXUAL VIOLENCE
ALLEGATIONS AS BOTH A SWORD AND
SHIELD DEPENDING OING ON THEIR
NEEDS.
THEY HAVE SELECTED SOME OF HER
SEXUAL VIOLENCE HOAX FACTS AS
THE SOURCE, INFLICTING THEM ON
THE PUBLIC AND MR. DEPP.
DO YOU FIND THAT MS. HEARD HAS
PROVEN ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
DEFAMMAST -- DEFAM8?
>> Answer: NO.
AS TO THIS STATEMENT APPEARING
IN THE APRIL TWEIVE, 2020
ON-LINE EDITION OF THE DAILY
MAIL "QUITE SIMPLY, THIS WAS AN
AMBUSH, A HOAX.
THEY SET MR. DEPP UP BY CALLING
THE COPS.
BUT THE FIRST ATTEMPT DID NOT 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 THE
PLACE UP.
GOT THEIR STORIES STRAIGHT UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF A LAWYER AND
PUBLICIST AND THEN PLACED A
SECOND CALL TO 911."
DO YOU FIND THAT MS. HEARD HAS
PROVEN ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
DEFAMATION?
>> Answer: YES.
>> MR. WALDMAN WHILE ACTING AS
AN AGENT FOR MR. DEPP MADE OR
PUBLISHED THE STATEMENT?
>> Answer: YES.
THE STATEMENT WAS ABOUT
MS. HEARD?
>> Answer: YES THE STATEMENT WAS
SEEN BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN
MS. HEARD.
>> Answer: YES QUESTION: THE
STATEMENT WAS FALSE?
>> Answer: YES DO YOU FIND
MS. HEARD HAS PROVEN BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
STATEMENT BY MR. WALDMAN WAS
MADE WITH ACTUAL MALICE?
>> Answer: YES.
>> 3 AS TO THIS STATEMENT
APPEARING IN THE APRIL 27th,
2020 ON-LINE EDITION OF THE
DAILY MAIL "WE’VE REACHED THE
BEGINNING OF THE END OF
MS. HEARD’S ABUSE HOAX AGAINST
JOB ANY DEPP".
DO YOU FIND MS. HEARD HAS PROVEN
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?
>> Answer: NO.
AS AGAINST JOHN C. DEPP II WE
THE JURY AWARD COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2 MILLION.
AS AGAINST JOHN C. DEPP II WE
THE JURY AWARD THE AMOUNTED OF
$0-DOLLARS.
>> DO EITHER SIDE WISH TO HAVE
THE JURY POLLED?
>> MEMBERS OF THE JURY IF THIS
IS YOUR VERDICT PLEASE ANSWER
YES.
IF THIS IS NOT YOUR VERDICT,
PLEASE ANSWER NO.
JURY NUMBER 6.
YES.
>> JURY NUMBER 10.
>> YES.
JUROR NUMBER 15.
YES.
>> JUROR NUMBER 16.
>> YES.
>> JUROR NUMBER 22.
>> YES.
>> JUROR NUMBER 27
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>> JUROR NUMBER 29.
>> YES.
>> DO YOU FIND JURY’S VERDICT IS
UNANIMOUS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS
CONCLUDES YOUR INFORMS THIS
CASE.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
YOUR DEDICATION AND YOUR HARD
WORK ACCIDENT OCCUR THIS TRIAL.
I KNOW I SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY
HERE WHEN I APPRECIATE TELL YOU
WE APPRECIATE YOUR SACRIFICES.
>> WE WERE JUST LISTENING IN TO
A VERDICT FINALLY REACHED IN THE
JOHNNY DEPP VERSUS HIS EX-WIFE
AMBER HEARD.
THIS DEFAMATION TRIAL.
WE’LL START WITH DEPP’S CASE.
>>> WE CAN DO A BOTTOM LINE.
THE JURY BASICALLY HAS SAID THAT
THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND THAT
JOHNNY DEPP HAD BEEN DEFAMED BY
AMBER HEARD ON ALL OF THE
VARIOUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE
READ AND CAME UP WITH NOT THE
$50 MILLION IN DAMAGES, BUT $15.
10 COMPENSATORY AND $FIVE IN
PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
AND ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT.
>>> SO YOU REMEMBER AMBER HEARD
COUNTER-SUED JOHNNY DEPP FOR
$100 MILLION.
HOWEVER, A LITTLE OF A MIXED BAG
HERE.
THE JURY DID FIND IN SOME CASES
SHE WAS DEFAMED, SAYING THAT SHE
WILL ONLY BE AWARDED $2.
BUT IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
$0-DOLLARS.
A LITTLE BIT OF MIXED BAG HERE.
THE HEADLINE, THOUGH IS THAT
JOHNNY DEPP WILL GET $15 MILLION
IN DAMAGES, AMBER HEARD JUST
$2 MILLION IN DAMAGES.