Johnny Depp

The jury also found in favor of Heard, who said she was defamed by Depp's lawyer when he called her abuse allegations a hoax. Jury members found Depp should be ...

(Heard and Depp’s teams each blame the other.) He was also replaced as the title character in the third “Fantastic Beasts” spin-off film, “The Crimes of Grindelwald.” In the Virginia case, Depp had to prove not only that he never assaulted Heard, but that Heard’s article — which focused primarily on public policy related to domestic violence — defamed him. Both performers emerge from the trial with reputations in tatters with unclear prospects for their careers. He’d take my life from me,” Heard said in her final testimony. While the case was ostensibly about libel, most of the testimony focused on whether Heard had been physically and sexually abused, as she claimed. The verdicts bring an end to a televised trial that Depp had hoped would help restore his reputation, though it turned into a spectacle of a vicious marriage.

Following the verdict, which found that Amber Heard had defamed Johnny Depp in her 2018 op-ed, Depp released a statement on Instagram, thanking his fans and ...

“A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed, and it caused the jury to be confused,” Bredehoft said, noting that Heard was “demonized” by Depp’s legal team despite the “enormous amount of evidence” she and her attorneys presented. The actor then widened the scope of the trial’s impact, calling the findings “a setback” that “sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated.” She also brought in the issue of freedom of speech, concluding, “I’m sad I lost this case. “I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she wrote. Ryan Adams, who has faced his own allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and emotional abuse (allegations he has denied), commented on Depp’s Instagram, leaving a series of congratulatory emoji — a heart, raised hands, and the fire emoji. Heard was awarded $2 million in compensatory damages and $0 in punitive damages relating to Depp’s attorney Adam Waldman’s 2020 op-ed in The Daily Mail. Shortly after the verdict was made public, Depp, who was in England during the verdict, went to his typewriter to craft a statement. “All in the blink of an eye.” (He is apparently referring to the op-ed which was at the center of the trial, in which he is not named.) “False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although no charges were ever brought against me.” Addressing Wednesday’s verdict, Depp said in part, “The jury gave me my life back.

The outcome of the Johnny Depp defamation trial turned a bit of celebrity jurisprudence on its head — the long-standing conventional wisdom that it's easier ...

“It is remarkable that a judge in the U.K. found that the Sun had proven 12 separate acts of ‘wife beating’ by Depp, but in Virginia a jury essentially found zero acts of domestic abuse and that Ms. Heard’s claims to the contrary were basically a ‘hoax,’” Berlik added. While the U.K. case prompted outsize media coverage, the trial in Virginia took it to another level. The trial was live-streamed, with millions tuning in and dissecting the testimony on social media. Rather, under British law, the publication had to prove that Depp was, in fact, a wife beater. Such statutes — the acronym is short for strategic lawsuits against public participation — provide defendants a quick way to get meritless lawsuits dismissed. So it surprised some when Depp prevailed in the U.S. case, given plaintiffs here face a much higher bar for proving libel of a public figure.

The jury in Virginia found that Ms. Heard had damaged her ex-husband's reputation with an op-ed in which she identified herself as a “public figure ...

Others bolstered Mr. Depp’s claim of reputational damage, including his agent, who testified that the actor had lost a $22.5 million deal to reprise his role in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise after Ms. Heard’s op-ed was published. The sister, Whitney Henriquez, said that she saw Mr. Depp actively hitting Ms. Heard while wearing a cast from his finger injury. In Australia, he testified, she threw a handle of vodka that exploded on his hand and severed his finger. The judge in that case had ruled that the defendants had shown that what they published was “substantially true.” Ms. Heard, he testified, had once been a girlfriend who seemed “too good to be true,” but turned into a partner who would taunt him, call him demeaning names, punch him and throw objects at him. Ms. Heard countersued, claiming that she had been defamed in 2020 when one of Mr. Depp’s lawyers at the time had dismissed her accusations as a “hoax” in statements to a British tabloid. Sometimes breaking into sobs on the stand, Ms. Heard testified about more than a dozen times that, she said, Mr. Depp was violent toward her. “The absolute destruction of Amber Heard is going to have an impact,” Ms. White said. In the courtroom. In a statement after the verdict Mr. Depp thanked the jury, saying that it “gave me my life back.” The combination of star power, sensational details and cameras in the courtroom turned the trial into an internet obsession. (Early drafts of it were prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union, where Ms. Heard was an ambassador with a focus on women’s rights and gender-based violence.)

Here's a list of all the celebrities who liked Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's Instagram statements posted shortly after a civil jury in Virginia found that ...

Jenni “JWoww” Farley (commented “❤️❤️❤️❤️”) Zedd (commented “♥️♥️♥️”) Currently, Depp's Instagram statement has over 16 million likes, and the post does not have comments limited.

Many victims of domestic violence who watched the trial will likely conclude that, if they share their experiences, they will be disbelieved, shamed, ...

In a previous piece, I wrote about how this trial evoked revenge porn in forcing the defendant to document and participate in her own spectacular humiliation in front of a judge, a jury, and the viewers at home. In March, Depp’s longtime buddy Marilyn Manson, who is godfather to Depp’s daughter, filed a defamation lawsuit against the actress Evan Rachel Wood, who has publicly accused Manson of emotional abuse and rape. The burden of proof rested with Depp’s side to demonstrate that Heard had engineered an abuse hoax across several years, that the “defamatory implication” of her op-ed “was designed and intended by Ms. Heard,” and that she had acted “with actual malice,” which the Supreme Court, in New York Times Co. v. To “research” the case only required glancing at TikTok, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram, where Heard was cast as the delusional harpy and Depp as the lovable rogue. If Depp’s prime motivation in bringing the suit against Heard was to embarrass and stigmatize her, then he would have won, regardless of the verdict; that he became a men’s-rights folk hero in the process may have come as a surprise even to him. On Wednesday, a panel of five men and two women found that Heard defamed Depp in an op-ed for the Post, in December, 2018, by referring to herself as “representing domestic abuse,” by stating that she witnessed “how institutions protect men accused of abuse,” and by tweeting a link to the online version of the op-ed, which carried the headline “I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath. If a man says a woman beat him, they never believe him.” They could not present evidence in Heard’s favor that the judge, Penney Azcarate, ruled out as hearsay, including testimony from seven medical professionals that Heard had reported contemporaneous episodes of abuse to them and a series of text messages from one of Depp’s employees, Stephen Deuters, in which Deuters appears to acknowledge that Depp physically harmed Heard on an airplane. (As Amanda Hess wrote, in the Times, “I did not follow the defamation trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard—it followed me.”) “One time, ladies and gentlemen, one time—if he abused her one time, Amber wins,” Rottenborn told the jury. The pivotal twelve words in the 2018 op-ed were “Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse.” This is an accurate statement, but Depp argued that Heard was able to make that statement only because she had lied and faked her injuries when she sought the restraining order. They did not succeed in moving the case from Virginia, where Depp filed suit and where the Post’s servers are situated, to California, where Depp and Heard reside, where much of their relationship unfolded, and where legal protections (known as anti-SLAPP laws) for people who speak up on matters of public interest—such as preventing domestic violence—are significantly stronger than in Virginia. They could not get the case dismissed after the High Court in London, in 2020, ruled against Depp in his libel claim against the tabloid the Sun, which called him a “wife beater”; the judge in that case found that twelve of Heard’s fourteen abuse accusations as presented in court were proven to be “substantially true.” They could not exclude from the jury pool a man who read out the following text from his wife: “Amber is psychotic. (The jury also found that Depp was liable for defamatory statements that his former attorney Adam Waldman had made about Heard and her friends staging a scene of alleged abuse; they awarded Heard two million in damages.) Heard did not write the headline, and, in the article, she specified that she had been “sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age”—long before she met Depp, who has denied ever hitting or assaulting Heard. In fact, Heard does not name Depp at all in the Post piece, which was proposed and initially drafted by the A.C.L.U., and which argued for reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act and for preserving Title IX protections against sexual assault in schools.

Johnny Depp's legal victory and the death of Roe v. Wade are part of the same toxic cultural movement.

This trial, the narrative goes, is a necessary corrective to the #BelieveWomen hashtag that trended in the heady early days of Me Too: The point is not to believe all women, but to believe all victims, including male victims. Meanwhile, the Me Too movement itself was a response to the election of Donald Trump, which came even after Trump was heard on tape boasting about sexually assaulting multiple women. Meanwhile, when a court found Amber Heard should be required to pay $15 million to a man who compelling evidence suggests abused her, the hashtag #AmberTurd trended on Twitter. This verdict is as much as to say that anyone who says the phrase “I was abused” can be sued as a liar, and is highly likely to have a chilling effect on other victims of domestic violence who might want to step forward. The official Twitter account of House Judiciary GOP celebrated with a victorious GIF of Depp in full Jack Sparrow regalia. The political action of the 1970s met the reactionary work of Phyllis Schlafly and her cohort, who killed the Equal Rights Amendment. The girl-power ethos of ’90s third-wave feminism gave way to the virginity-obsessed purity culture of the Bush era.

Heard has "excellent grounds" for an appeal after "an enormous amount of evidence was suppressed"

The verdict sends “a horrible message,” Bredehoft opined. While Heard was awarded $2 million in damages for her own countersuit, Bredehoft stated that the actor could “absolutely not” afford to pay the nearly $10.4 million judgment. So although they weren’t supposed to look at social media (which was inundated with decontextualized information about the case, and often biased in Depp’s favor), Bredehoft believed the jurors were “absolutely” affected by the circus surrounding the case. “It was horrible. Heard’s team “had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed,” Bredehoft shared, including “the medical records, which were very, very significant because they showed a pattern … going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example. A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed, and it caused the jury to be confused.

In this post-#MeToo moment, misogyny and celebrity go hand in hand.

Johnny Depp is being embraced as a hero in some quarters, but his victory extends even to those who will allow themselves to feel troubled by the outcome of the trial and then move on. And while he accused Heard of doing terrible things to him in the course of their relationship and breakup, the lawsuit wasn’t about those things. Some of us may wince a little when we watch “Pirates of the Caribbean” or “Donnie Brasco,” but we’ll probably still watch. The mobs of social media mobilize against women with special frequency and ferocity, often using the language of righteous grievance. That he came off as a guy unable to control his temper or his appetites was seen, by many of the most vocal social media users, to enhance his credibility, while Heard’s every tear or gesture was taken to undermine hers. His offscreen peccadilloes (the drinking, the drugs, the “Winona Forever” tattoo) have been part of the pop-cultural background noise for much of that time, classified along with the scandals and shenanigans that have been a Hollywood sideshow since the silent era. We want them to be bad boys, to break the rules and get away with it. A few years later, it seems more likely that they were sacrificed not to end that system of entitlement but rather to preserve it. The convention of courtroom journalism is to make a scruple of indeterminacy. He brought with him into the courtroom the well-known characters he has played, a virtual entourage of lovable rogues, misunderstood artists and gonzo rebels. I don’t mean that women always tell the truth, that men are always guilty as charged, or that due process isn’t the bedrock of justice. The Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial was, from gavel to gavel, a singularly baffling, unedifying and sad spectacle.

After an explosive six-week libel trial followed by millions on social media and live TV, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard each face an uphill battle as they try ...

He said the case that captured the world's attention might just be a bellwether for people and corporations facing existential threats to their reputations and livelihoods. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer has revealed that two more “Pirates” scripts are in development, but neither will include Depp’s Capt. Jack Sparrow, a role that earned the actor an Oscar nomination. He added: “I think it’s going to be easier for Johnny. For Amber, whether she’s innocent or guilty or whatever it is, it’s going to be difficult. Some observers with experience in high-profile cases believe Depp's decision to sue — even though it meant dragging his and Heard's personal lives through the mud — was a last-ditch attempt to bolster his star power after his failed London libel lawsuit against The Sun for describing him as a “wife beater." Heard, who was in the room for Wednesday's verdict, plans to appeal. And he is likely to still get work on indie productions like those that helped along his 38-year run. Heard has a mountain to climb,” said Eric Dezenhall, a crisis mitigator in Washington with no involvement in the case. Depp, who wasn't in court, said “the jury gave me my life back. But unlike rockers and stand-up comedians ensnared in #MeToo moments who can still earn through live shows, Depp and Heard need the crisis-averse studio machines to make big money. The jury awarded the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star more than $10 million. “If Depp keeps his expectations proportional and understands that he’s unlikely to hit his former heights, he can have a solid career if he takes things slowly. “Depp has a hill to climb.

"Both of them will work again, but I think it will be a while before a major studio will consider them 'safe' enough to bet on," said former entertainment ...

Having watched the whole trial, I don’t think that he did any service to his children by airing all of this dirty laundry,” Ward said in an interview. But he said Depp also ran the risk of making those moments more memorable to the public than his film work. In evaluating Heard’s counterclaims, jurors considered three statements by a lawyer for Depp who called her allegations a hoax. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously,’’ she said in a statement posted on her Twitter account. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly humiliated. However, he lost that role and was replaced in a “Fantastic Beasts” spinoff.

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's dueling defamation trials came to an end on June 1. Court reporter Victoria Bekimpis looks back on what it could've meant for ...

A man who identified himself as Dan Kim, 26, stood outside the courthouse on May 27 with a white sign that read, “#ISTANDWITHAMBER.” “I don’t think it’s a big deal,” Kim said, referring to the smaller presence of Heard fans in contrast to Depp’s. “I think that sometimes it is disappointing to see some of the behavior of Johnny Depp fans. “One thing is for sure: I will never watch a Johnny Depp or Amber Heard movie for as long as I live,” another said. “The judge [would] rather have Depp fans sit in the courtroom over the press,” one of my colleagues told me. “How is this a fair trial?” During opening statements, fans behaved — everyone had been repeatedly warned that any breach of decorum would result in expulsion — but it’s hard to believe the jurors didn’t notice a bunch of Depp supporters packing the benches. “Any violation of this order may be found as contempt and will be punished accordingly.” On day one of the trial, Depp fans started showing up around 5 a.m., which isn’t quite overnight camping. “I’ve heard Amber’s stories and accusations that she’s been saying about Johnny Depp, and I just think he needs all the support that he can get, because I don’t believe anything she says,” one Depp supporter, Maryanne, told me. Asked near the end of the trial if they were excited that the crowds would soon be leaving, several employees smiled and responded “yes.” “Not you, just the crazies,” one security guard said. Another courthouse employee joked, “We’ve never had so much fun in our lives!” before commenting on the YouTube livestream of the trial and expressing pride “that our technology stood up.” “There will be no overnight camping on Courthouse grounds,” a court order mandated. “That’s all far from the usual tittle-tattle that happens when celebrities hit the court circuit.” I was wrong. “I do think the Schadenfreude element is huge here. As attorney Ben Chew left the building, dozens of people swarmed his black SUV, cheering as they jockeyed for a photo.

Lauren Whittington says Johnny Depp left the pub 'about an hour before the verdict,' and that she 'wished him luck and thanked him for being so kind'

Meanwhile Heard said in a statement, "The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. The actor has been performing onstage with Beck, 77, overseas since Sunday. RELATED: Johnny Depp Was in "Great Mood" and "Seemed Very Happy" Shortly Before Amber Heard Verdict Was Read

The Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial ended with a verdict in Depp's favor. Now what happens with the two Hollywood stars? Legal experts weigh in.

"That can be an antidote to the things we saw of him in that trial, the nasty emails and such, that we did not like.” It will probably be a long and likely painful journey to rehabilitation, if she manages to get there.” But that likely wasn't an influence on the result in his favor, says Tanya Acker, a civil litigator and co-host of CBS' “Hot Bench.” Depp attorney Adam Waldman was quoted by The Daily Mail calling Heard’s abuse claims “a hoax” – a public comment that cost Depp’s team $2 million. Heard’s recounting of countless abuse episodes didn’t square with “picture of her injuries,” leading jurors to question her honesty, Rahmani says. “She could argue the verdicts are inconsistent, no rational jury could find in favor of them both,” Lewis says.

Amber Heard's lawyer said Thursday the actress cannot afford to pay the roughly $10 million judgment she owes ex-husband Johnny Depp, after a Virginia court ...

Terence Dougherty, an executive representing the American Civil Liberties Union, which Heard was an ambassador for and helped her craft the op-ed, testified about a donation Heard pledged to the organization after she received a $7 million from her divorce from Depp. Heard promised $3.5 million to the ACLU, though only $1.3 million has been given to the organization so far. Dougherty said he believed one of the funds was backed by Elon Musk, who Heard had a relationship with after she split from Depp. Heard paused her donations to the ACLU in 2019 because she was having “financial difficulties,” Dougherty said. Terence Dougherty, an executive representing the American Civil Liberties Union, which Heard was an ambassador for and helped her craft the op-ed, testified about a donation Heard pledged to the organization after she received a $7 million from her divorce from Depp. Heard promised $3.5 million to the ACLU, though only $1.3 million has been given to the organization so far. Dougherty said he believed one of the funds was backed by Elon Musk, who Heard had a relationship with after she split from Depp. Heard paused her donations to the ACLU in 2019 because she was having “financial difficulties,” Dougherty said. There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it," Bredehoft said. They have families.

The actor's victory against his ex-wife Amber Heard in one of the highest profile defamation cases to go to trial could inspire others to try their luck ...

Mr. Depp also wore out his welcome with tardiness and other issues that came out at the trial, where a former talent agent testified that he wore an earpiece on set so that his lines could be fed to him. The actress Ashley Judd’s defamation lawsuit against the producer Harvey Weinstein has been on hold during his criminal proceedings in California. She sued after reading that a director said that Mr. Weinstein’s studio, Miramax, had described her as a “nightmare to work with.” “The Lone Ranger” was a big-budget bomb in 2013. While Britain is sometimes considered hospitable to libel cases, the judge who heard that case, Andrew Nicol, found that there was sufficient proof to conclude that most of the assaults Ms. Heard described had occurred, and he determined that what the newspaper had published was “substantially true.” And some advocacy organizations and lawyers worry that the case could have a chilling effect on the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse, adding to their fears that they could be punished for speaking out. “Alice Through the Looking Glass” was a misfire in 2016, taking in 70 percent less than its predecessor worldwide. “Some people will definitely look at this as a playbook for suing your accuser,” said Charles Tobin, a First Amendment lawyer who practices in Fairfax, Va., where the trial played out over six weeks, and who briefly represented the former employer of a witness called in the Depp case. “I do think that well-resourced individuals who feel slighted by speech that embarrassed or criticized them in some way may feel emboldened by this verdict,” said Nicole Ligon, a First Amendment law professor who provides pro bono legal advice for people considering going public with sexual misconduct accusations. And the casino mogul Steve Wynn recently agreed to a settlement of a defamation suit he had filed against the lawyer Lisa Bloom, who said she would retract a statement accusing him of inappropriate behavior involving a client. Judge Penney S. Azcarate ordered that cameras be allowed, maintaining that Ms. Bredehoft’s argument about victims of sexual offenses would only pertain to criminal trials. Ugly charges of physical abuse and lurid testimony came to define the Depp-Heard trial, which included one line of questioning about actual dirty laundry: the couple’s fierce argument over how the sheets in a Los Angeles penthouse where they were staying had become befouled. But between the high costs of lawyers’ fees and the fears of revealing embarrassing details in open court, many such cases are settled before they ever reach trial.

Amber Heard's lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, appeared on "Today" and "CBS Mornings" and said the actress intends to appeal after a jury found she defamed Johnny ...

Bredehoft responded that one issue was the cameras in the courtroom, something Depp’s team had requested and Heard’s lawyers were against. “They were able to suppress the medical records, which were very, very significant, because they showed a pattern going all the way back to 2012 of Amber reporting this to her therapist, for example. Bredehoft responded that Depp’s team “demonized” Heard and suppressed evidence. Bredehoft said that Heard was “heartbroken” after the verdict. “The jury rejected it,” Guthrie said. In addition, the jury found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three statements that called her accusations a hoax and awarded her $2 million.

Even before the verdict came in, the six-week-long trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard had ramifications beyond the courtroom.

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.