Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard ruled! ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star scores close to total win against ex-wife

Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard ruled!  ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ star scores close to total win against ex-wife


Actor Johnny Depp won more than $10 million in damages Wednesday, nearly winning a near-total victory in the defamation lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard, following a six-week hearing of graphic testimony about the stars’ sour relationship . A seven-person jury in Virginia also ruled for Heard on a counterclaim against Depp. The “Pirates of the Caribbean” film star depicted the decision as a retribution, and his ex-wife said it was “disappointing”.

Juries awarded Depp $15 million in damages from Heard, which the judge reduced to $10.35 million to comply with state limits on punitive damages. The panel ordered Depp to pay Hurd $2 million in damages. The CDEP, 58, sued Hurd for $50 million, arguing that he had defamed her when she called herself “a public figure representing domestic abuse.”

Heard countered for $100 million, saying Depp defamed her when her attorney called her allegations “hoax.” Depp denied hitting Heard, 36, or any of the women, saying she was the one who turned violent in their relationship. Heard, best known for his role in ‘Aquaman’, cost him ‘everything’. A new “Pirates” film was shelved and Depp was replaced in the “Fantastic Beasts” film franchise, a “Harry Potter” spinoff. The jury gave me my life back. “I am really humbled,” Depp, who oversaw Britain’s decision, said in a statement. “The best is yet to come and finally a new chapter has begun,” he said, ending with the Latin phrase “veritas nucum perit.” Truth never perishes.” Suna, sitting in the courtroom between her two lawyers, looked down when the verdict was read.

“The despair I feel today is beyond words,” he said in a statement. “I am saddened that the mountain of evidence was still not enough to withstand the disproportionate power, influence and sway of my ex-husband.” “I’m even more disappointed at what this decision means to other women,” she said. added. “It’s a blow.” Depp faced a different outcome in the UK less than two years ago, when he sued the Sun tabloid for calling her a “wife beater”. A judge of the London High Court ruled that he had repeatedly attacked Heard.

The jury heard about the couple’s struggle

The two met during the shooting of “The Rum Diary” in 2011 and got married in February 2015. Their divorce was finalized almost two years later. At the heart of the legal case was a December 2018 opinion by Hurd in the Washington Post. Depp was not named in the article, but his attorney told jurors it was clear Heard was referring to him.

The jury concurred with all of Depp’s defamation claims, citing an excerpt from the article and headline that read: “I spoke out against sexual violence – and faced the wrath of our culture. This has to change.” ” The jurors rejected two of Heard’s three counterarguments. He concluded he was defamed when a lawyer for Depp told a media outlet that Heard damaged property to show to police after the alleged fight.

“Amber and her friends drank a bit and scoured the place, getting their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist,” the statement said. During the six weeks of testimony, Heard’s lawyers argued that he told the truth and that his comments were covered as free speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Juries listened to recordings of the couple’s feud and saw graphic photos of Depp’s bloody finger. He said that the upper part of his finger was broken when Heard threw a bottle of vodka at him in 2015. Heard denied injuring Depp’s finger and said that Depp sexually assaulted her that night with a bottle of wine. He said that he killed her only to defend himself or his sister. Sakshi was livestreamed widely on social media, attracting large audiences to hear details about the couple’s troubled relationship.
Depp’s lawyers filed the US case in Fairfax County, Virginia, as the Washington Post printed there. The newspaper was not the respondent.


Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *