The Johnny Depp and Amber Heard court battle, which was supposed to have been over following the verdict earlier this year in their defamation case, is heating up again. Earlier this week, Heard filed an appeal, alleging that the trial never should have been held in the first place, and should not have been in Virginia, a state that hindered the effectiveness of her defense, according to her own lawyers. Now, The Hollywood Reporter has details on how Johnny Depp, and his lawyers, are firing back against the appeal while also contesting the original verdict.
The May trial awarded Johnny Depp over $10 million dollars while Amber Heard was victorious on one claim, receiving $2 million from The Pirates of the Caribbean star. Depp’s lawyers are now arguing that the lone count which went Heard’s way, was not related to Deep, and instead was a statement made by his lawyer, operating as an independent contractor In the appeal, Depp’s team argues that “If clients cannot control the details of their attorneys’ work, it makes little sense that clients should nonetheless be held accountable for their attorneys’ tortious actions.”
At issue is a statement made by Johnny Depp’s attorney, Adam Waldman, in which the attorney referred to Amber Heard’s domestic abuse allegations as a “hoax” and an “ambush.” While the jury for the defamation trial widely supported Depp, Waldman’s statements gave Heard her lone victory, resulting the $2 million award. The heart of the Sweeny Todd star’s appeal centers on how it was not Depp, but rather one of his attorneys, whom Depp has no control over, that made the statement and therefore the celebrity should not be found at fault.
Johnny Depp is not the only filing an appeal, Amber Heard has also filed an appeal to the May ruling. The Aquaman star and her lawyers are arguing that the trial never should have taken place as Heard’s statements were opinions and count as protected speech. All of the challenged statements, according to her lawyers, can not be proven factually false as they reflect Heard’s subjective viewpoints at the time that they were made.
The other aspect of the appeal alleges that the location of the suit unfairly benefited Johnny Depp while penalizing Amber Heard. If the trial was held in California, which has strong Anti-SLAPP laws, Heard’s attorneys argue that the lawsuit would never have made it in front of a judge. The trial was instead held in Virginia, limiting the ability for her to get witnesses to testify in her defense.
[via]
