Amber Heard claims Juror 15 was an impostor, seeks new trial against Johnny Depp

 





Amber Heard’s lawyer expressed Thursday on NBC's Today that her client "totally" needs to pursue a Virginia jury's choice that found the entertainer obligated for maligning Johnny Depp in her Washington Post commentary guaranteeing homegrown maltreatment.


"She has a few magnificent justification for it," Elaine Bredehoft told Savannah Guthrie.


In the meeting, Bredehoft faulted various elements for Heard's misfortune, refering to evidentiary choices as well as the impact of virtual entertainment.


"She was belittled here," Bredehoft said. "Various things were permitted in this court that shouldn't have been permitted, and it made the jury be confounded." She refered to the different result in the UK, where a court voted down Depp after he looked for a judgment against The Sun for alluding to him as a "spouse blender."




She said that Heard's side was permitted to tell the jury "about the UK judgment. So the harms is totally slanted. There are no harms. It halted at November 2, 2020, which is the point at which the judgment descended in the UK."


The Virginia jury granted Depp $10 million in compensatory harms and $5 million in reformatory harms. Judge Penney Azcarate immediately decreased the correctional harms to the greatest permitted, $350,000.


Inquired as to whether Heard can stand to pay almost $10.4 million, Bredehoft said, "Goodness. By no means." The jury likewise granted Heard $2 million in penalties for one of her cases, made by Depp's lawyers, that she and her companions organized the location of one of several's contentions at their midtown Los Angeles penthouse and that the entertainers' claims were a "trick."


Bredehoft said that one of the main things that Heard said after the decision was, "I am so sorry to that multitude of ladies out there. This is a difficulty for all ladies in and outside the court, and she feels the weight of that."


She added, "Truly what occurred here is a story of two preliminaries." She said that they were not permitted to let the jury know that the UK court "tracked down that Mr. Depp had committed no less than 12 demonstrations of aggressive behavior at home, including sexual savagery, against Amber. So what did Depp's group gain from this? Decry Amber and smother the proof. We had a colossal measure of proof that was smothered for this situation that was in the UK case."


She said that Depp's group was "ready to smother the clinical records, which were extremely, critical in light of the fact that they showed an example … going as far as possible back to 2012 of Amber detailing this to her specialist, for instance. We had [a] huge measure of texts, including from Mr. Depp's partners, saying, 'When I let him know he kicked you, he cried. He is so grieved. That didn't come in."


Bredehoft likewise recommended that almost certainly, members of the jury, who were told not to take a gander at media inclusion of the preliminary, knew about the thing was occurring via virtual entertainment, where feeling was predominantly for Depp.


"They returned home consistently. They have families. The families are via virtual entertainment. We had a 10 sunrise in the center in view of a Judicial Conference. It's absolutely impossible that they could never have been affected by it, and it was terrible. It super was disproportionate. … It resembled the Roman Colosseum, how they view this entire case." Bredehoft likewise noticed that she was against permitting cameras in the court, which she said made the preliminary "a zoo."


Bredehoft said that she accepts that the jury decision for Depp sends "a horrendous message… It's a critical mishap since that is precisely exact thing it implies. Except if you take out your telephone and you video your mate or your life partner beating you, really, you will not be accepted."


The Post, in the mean time, added a proofreader's note to the web-based rendition of the commentary, taking note of the jury's decision for the situation. The distribution was not a respondent for the situation.


SOURCE : DEADLINE 

Post a Comment

0 Comments