Jury's Duty in Depp-Heard Trial Doesn't Track Public Debate

This combination of two separate photos shows divorced actors Johnny Depp, left, and Amber Heard in the courtroom at the Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax, Va., Tuesday May 3, 2022. (Jim Watson/Pool photos via AP)
This combination of two separate photos shows divorced actors Johnny Depp, left, and Amber Heard in the courtroom at the Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax, Va., Tuesday May 3, 2022. (Jim Watson/Pool photos via AP)
TT
20

Jury's Duty in Depp-Heard Trial Doesn't Track Public Debate

This combination of two separate photos shows divorced actors Johnny Depp, left, and Amber Heard in the courtroom at the Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax, Va., Tuesday May 3, 2022. (Jim Watson/Pool photos via AP)
This combination of two separate photos shows divorced actors Johnny Depp, left, and Amber Heard in the courtroom at the Fairfax County Circuit Court in Fairfax, Va., Tuesday May 3, 2022. (Jim Watson/Pool photos via AP)

A seven-person civil jury in Virginia will resume deliberations Tuesday in Johnny Depp's libel trial against Amber Heard. What the jury considers will be very different from the public debate that has engulfed the high-profile proceedings.

For six weeks, testimony focused on details of alleged abuse that Heard says she suffered at the hands of Depp. Heard has outlined more than a dozen specific instances where she says she was assaulted by Depp, The Associated Press said.

Depp has denied any physical or sexual abuse, and says Heard concocted the claims to destroy Depp's reputation. Depp's legions of online fans have focused on their belief that Heard has been untruthful, and that that will determine the outcome.

But the case itself is a defamation claim. Depp sued Heard for libel — for $50 million — in Fairfax County Circuit Court over a December 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.”

That article never even mentions Depp by name, but his lawyers say he was defamed nonetheless. Most of the article discusses public policy as it relates to domestic violence, and Heard's lawyers say she has a First Amendment right to weigh in.

In closing arguments, though, Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez argued that Heard's free-speech rights have limits.

“The First Amendment doesn't protect lies that hurt and defame people,” she said.

Depp's lawyers point to two passages in the article that they say clearly refer to Depp.

In the first passage, Heard writes that “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath.” Depp’s lawyers call it a clear reference to Depp, given that Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic violence in 2016 — two years before she wrote the article.

In a second passage, she states, “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.” (Depp's lawyers are also seeking damages over a headline that appeared above the online version of the article, even though Heard didn't write it.)

The jury, which has to come to a unanimous decision for a verdict, must decide whether those passages in the Post are defamatory. And the verdict form gives them step-by-step instructions on how to determine that.

Heard's lawyers say they have presented a mountain of evidence that Heard was abused. But they say that even if the jury were somehow to believe that she was never abused even a single time, she should still prevail in the lawsuit.

That's because libel law spells out several factors that must be considered. First, the alleged defamatory statements have to be about the plaintiff. Heard's lawyers said the article is not about Depp at all. He's not mentioned, and they say the focus is on Heard's experience about the aftermath of speaking out. Those statements remain objectively true even if she wasn't in fact abused, her lawyers contend.

Depp's lawyers, though, say the two passages are clear references to Depp, given the publicity that surrounded their 2016 divorce proceedings.

In addition, because Depp is a public figure, Heard can only be found guilty of libel if the jury decides that Heard acted with “actual malice,” which requires clear and convincing evidence that she either knew what she was writing was false or that she acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Heard lawyer J. Benjamin Rottenborn said during Friday's closing arguments that Heard carefully reviewed drafts of the article — the first draft was written not by her, but by the American Civil Liberties Union — with her lawyers to make sure that what was written passed legal muster. Rottenborn said that fact alone is sufficient proof that she didn't act with actual malice.

As for the abuse itself, Depp's lawyers tried to suggest to the jury that if they think Heard is lying or embellishing any of her abuse claims, that she can't be trusted and that all of her abuse claims must be dismissed as untrustworthy.

“You either believe all of it, or none of it,” Vasquez said. “Either she is a victim of ugly, horrible abuse, or she is a woman who is willing to say absolutely anything.”

In Heard’s closing, Rottenborn said the nitpicking over Heard’s evidence of abuse ignores the fact there’s overwhelming evidence on her behalf and sends a dangerous message to domestic-violence victims.

“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen,” Rottenborn said. “If you did take pictures, they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends, they’re lying. If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.”

And he rejected Vasquez’s suggestion that if the jury thinks Heard might be embellishing on a single act of abuse that they have to disregard everything she says. He said Depp’s libel claim must fail if Heard suffered even a single incident of abuse.

“They’re trying to trick you into thinking Amber has to be perfect to win,” Rottenborn said.



Movie Review: In 'Heads of State,' a Buddy Comedy with Statesmen

 This image released by Prime shows John Cena, left, and Idris Elba in a scene from "Heads of State." (Bruno Calvo/Prime via AP)
This image released by Prime shows John Cena, left, and Idris Elba in a scene from "Heads of State." (Bruno Calvo/Prime via AP)
TT
20

Movie Review: In 'Heads of State,' a Buddy Comedy with Statesmen

 This image released by Prime shows John Cena, left, and Idris Elba in a scene from "Heads of State." (Bruno Calvo/Prime via AP)
This image released by Prime shows John Cena, left, and Idris Elba in a scene from "Heads of State." (Bruno Calvo/Prime via AP)

Say what you will about the Idris Elba-John Cena vehicle “Heads of State,” but it’s surely the first buddy comedy about the fraying bonds of NATO.

The potential collapse of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plays a surprisingly pivotal role in this fitfully diverting, for-background-noise-only, straight-to-streaming movie. Elba plays the embattled British Prime Minister Sam Clarke, while Cena co-stars as the recently elected US President Will Derringer, a former action star.

“Heads of State,” directed by Ilya Naishuller (“Nobody”), is mostly about their relationship, a tense and adversarial one challenged further when an assassination plot leaves them stranded together in Belarus. But that “Heads of State,” which debuts Wednesday on Prime Video, is such a mild romp makes it all the more surprising to hear a line uttered like: “If NATO falls, there’s no backstop against despots and dictators.”

It’s a funny time to release a comedy set around international political disconnection and imperiled Western democracy. But if you were beginning to worry that “Heads of State” is too timely, don’t. Any nods to current events here serve more as reminders of how much “Heads of State” — like most of Hollywood’s output — is unengaged with anything resembling our political reality.

You could argue that that’s not necessarily a bad thing. You could also argue that the greater sin of “Heads of State” is underusing Stephen Root. (He plays an expert working for the bad guys.) But the vaguest hints of real-world intrigue only cast a pale light on the movie’s mostly lackluster comic chops and uninspired action sequences.

The best thing going for “Heads of State” is that the chemistry between Elba and Cena is solid. The “Suicide Squad” co-stars trade barbs with a genial ease. Most of the time, those revolve around their characters’ divergent histories — Clarke was a commando before becoming a politician — in debates like which one of them is “gym strong” as opposed to “strong strong.”

That’s one of the few decent gags in the script by Josh Applebaum, Andre Nemec and Harrison Query. But one problem in “Heads of State” goes beyond the high-concept set-up. The best buddy comedies — “Midnight Run,” “48 Hrs.,” “The Nice Guys” — are predicated on opposites thrown together. Elba and Cena have their obvious differences. (Cena’s Derringer is exaggeratedly optimistic here, too.) But ultimately they’re both beefy dudes in suits.

As the MI6 agent Noel Bisset, Priyanka Chopra Jones gives the movie a kick. But her scenes are left to the beginning and end of the movie. In between, we’re left to wonder where she went, how two political leaders would have such non-existent security and whether a few half-decent jokes are enough to forgive the movie's geopolitical delusions.