Tap to unmute

Making Sense of the Verdict (Depp v. Heard)

  Рет қаралды 2,204,137

LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 5 900
@LegalEagle
@LegalEagle 2 жыл бұрын
Oh god, my editor misspelled “punitives” and I missed it. Crap. Lol. ☕ Seriously, sign up for Morning Brew now (it's the best)! legaleagle.link/morningbrew
@iam.slifer
@iam.slifer 2 жыл бұрын
🧢
@jprue577
@jprue577 2 жыл бұрын
No, you’re the best, Legal Eagle!!!
@davidspencer8373
@davidspencer8373 2 жыл бұрын
Like video
@kklein
@kklein 2 жыл бұрын
yeah thanks for giving me the only knowledge I bother to have on these topics
@jerrybeichner
@jerrybeichner 2 жыл бұрын
I signed up, and I'm a long time suscriber. Can I get a thumbs up?
@mateohodge6998
@mateohodge6998 2 жыл бұрын
"How can they both defame each other?" Someone's never went through a nasty break up before
@ashkebora7262
@ashkebora7262 2 жыл бұрын
The thing that makes the Depp-to-Heard defamation weird is that it was statements made by Depp's _lawyer_ that were defamatory. Usually to have a liable connection, a statement has to be made by an _employee_ of someone, not their contracted lawyer. The jury likely didn't know that, and also likely had a hold-out for Amber and they simply made a deal in deliberation (not too uncommon), or at least still thought a _likely true_ scenario is still defamatory when said with little evidence to assert the narrative and said with such vitriol. (edit: seems the spilt wine picture showed up _after_ the cops left, so the literal statement "they spilled some wine and roughed up the place and called the cops back in" _was_ factually wrong)
@jliller
@jliller 2 жыл бұрын
In any dispute between two or more parties it is possible for only one of them to be right. However, it is possible - and I daresay common - for both to be wrong.
@oPurpleGorillao
@oPurpleGorillao 2 жыл бұрын
It was a compromise. There was likely a holdout juror and they just gave amber that one count to throw that one juror a bone so they could all get this over with and go home
@HellDuke-
@HellDuke- 2 жыл бұрын
The confusion for people that didn't follow the whole thing is understandable. To someone not paying attention think of this way: Depp won in saying that Amber lied about him being an abuser. Amber also won because Depp claimed that amber was lying about her abuse. See the contradiction? That is why it's clear that people who are confused about the conflicting verdicts actually have not even followed the trial even a little bit, they just know that both sides won on defamation, but what claims or what was brought into evidence is something they are wilfully ignorant about.
@tjtarrant52
@tjtarrant52 2 жыл бұрын
So is this basically the case: Jury decided Amber had defamed Depp. But they also decided that although there wasn't sufficient evidence that Depp had abused Amber, they awarded her 2 million as there wasn't sufficient evidence to show that Johnny or somebody else never abused Amber? Is that the case?
@vogelaccount5902
@vogelaccount5902 2 жыл бұрын
"Actual malice," which doesn't really mean malice, vs. "spirit of malice," which means malice. Gotta love the law.
@jwell4638
@jwell4638 2 жыл бұрын
Actual malice means "Malice in the act (or fact) of", while spirit of malice means "malice in the intent of". A statement being malicious in act without a spirit of malice requires, unsurprisingly, reckless disregard.
@evitanigaminU
@evitanigaminU 2 жыл бұрын
@@7LegSpiders Proper language is whatever configuration of words that get your point across. The only people for whom legal language is proper are those in the legal profession
@alsy0055
@alsy0055 2 жыл бұрын
I'm a non english native and this thread makes my brain hurt. took me few minutes to process it.
@GeneralBolas
@GeneralBolas 2 жыл бұрын
@@evitanigaminU Everyone says that until they need a lawyer. Laws are written in words, but are subject to interpretation. Having well-defined ways to understand the meaning of words prevents judges and juries from just arbitrarily deciding what those words mean. You also don't want a law to suddenly change because we redefined what words mean in the 75 years since that law was passed. As such, having a "legal language" that has far fewer vagaries compared to vernacular language is a *good* thing. Though it does mean that you need an entire profession built around understanding that language...
@Kyle_Schaff
@Kyle_Schaff 2 жыл бұрын
Well, that’s literal malice. This is actual malice. Duh doy! Lol
@teddyhaines6613
@teddyhaines6613 2 жыл бұрын
"People are liable in a civil case, they are not guilty" We know that because of the Spongebob video, obviously.
@slayerfox2
@slayerfox2 2 жыл бұрын
What Ep?
@zzyxxyzz5442
@zzyxxyzz5442 2 жыл бұрын
@@slayerfox2 The one with Plankton suing Krabs over slipping in the Krusty Krab.
@გიორგიმოსაშვილი-ო3დ
@გიორგიმოსაშვილი-ო3დ 2 жыл бұрын
Link?
@janedoeski9196
@janedoeski9196 2 жыл бұрын
I love a spongebob reference 😍
@zzyxxyzz5442
@zzyxxyzz5442 2 жыл бұрын
@@გიორგიმოსაშვილი-ო3დ Just search for "legal eagle SpongeBob" and it should appear.
@evan
@evan 2 жыл бұрын
Are there any legal repercussions for being caught lying in court multiple times? I don’t quite understand perjury in regards to this case
@MrBizteck
@MrBizteck 2 жыл бұрын
Not I believe in a civil case.
@jermainerace4156
@jermainerace4156 2 жыл бұрын
Perjury is a tough conviction, trials are expensive and it's kind of pointless because she didn't gain anything. It's rarely pursued unless the case is very serious and criminal: national security, government corruption, racketeering. It can be used as a threat, if a DA wants a reluctant witness to take the stand or pressure a victim to press charges, sometimes slips in testimony will give this kind of leverage. This last practice is obviously looked down on as counter-productive in the long run as it degrades the justice system in the eyes of the public.
@ashleyneku5432
@ashleyneku5432 2 жыл бұрын
Perjury is a criminal matter, not a civil one. The jury can definitively side with the plaintiff or not because the burden of proof is lower, but it is also not high enough to say the other side is "lying." If being 51% sure someone was telling the truth meant you could persecute the other side for lying, it would be absolute havoc.
@ravenshrike
@ravenshrike 2 жыл бұрын
Perjury in US courts is almost invariably a political prosecution, as are most process crimes related to lying. The exception to the rule would have been the Sussman prosecution, except his lawyers argued in court that since the top brass of the FBI knew the entire time that he was working directly for Clinton and still opened an investigation into Trump that his lies about that could not be considered material.
@rikkicobb1124
@rikkicobb1124 2 жыл бұрын
I’ve heard that generally perjury charges are avoided when domestic violence is involved to avoid deterring people from coming forward about DV. I wonder if Legal Eagle can confirm.
@rikkicobb1124
@rikkicobb1124 2 жыл бұрын
You have no idea how many times I’ve had to explain to people that this wasn’t a criminal trial and no one is going to jail.. Also that the statutory max for punitive in Virginia is 350k so he actually isn’t getting 5 million in punitive damages.
@emmi2670
@emmi2670 2 жыл бұрын
> ... getting 5*k* in punitive damages You mean 5 million?
@rikkicobb1124
@rikkicobb1124 2 жыл бұрын
@@emmi2670 😂 That is 100 percent what I meant. I’m just a sleep deprived law student who was up all night NOT procrastinating if anyone asks. Thanks for catching that!
@rikkicobb1124
@rikkicobb1124 2 жыл бұрын
@Bizzram ✓ I’m just a law student and not yet a licensed attorney, but I’m willing to bet if you asked Legal Eagle that he’d say, “it depends.”
@afriendofafriend5766
@afriendofafriend5766 2 жыл бұрын
@Bizzram ✓ If you can prove it. And that's expensive.
@nGUNNARp
@nGUNNARp 2 жыл бұрын
0 times, you've had to explain it 0 times...but you've probably felt like correcting people many many times.
@OneNvrKnoz
@OneNvrKnoz 2 жыл бұрын
I would love to hear your opinion on Amber’s lawyer’s statements she’s made in the press about the decision
@ISetYourFaceOnFire
@ISetYourFaceOnFire 2 жыл бұрын
SAME!!
@heatherc2939
@heatherc2939 2 жыл бұрын
Me too! It is unethical and perpetuating the defamation.
@jacobxa
@jacobxa 2 жыл бұрын
I wonder if Elaine actually believes Amber. She almost sounds like she does.
@ptolemeeselenion1542
@ptolemeeselenion1542 2 жыл бұрын
👀
@nathanielthomson6600
@nathanielthomson6600 2 жыл бұрын
Amber's lawyers are being incredibly unprofessional in their interviews, which is not a surprise considering they were incredibly unprofessional in the court room.
@Einhart
@Einhart 2 жыл бұрын
While the article doesn't state his name, she testified that the article was about JD. Probably to the dismay of her lawyers.
@daffodil852
@daffodil852 2 жыл бұрын
No, that doesn’t actually change anything. The problem was not that she wrote it with Johnny in mind. The problem is that even without naming him, the public can conclude that it was Johnny and that she intended for them to make that conclusion. Her admitting it was about him does not change anything, unless her defense was proving that it was about a different abusive man in her life and not Johnny. It’s still defamation by implication.
@jakestroll6518
@jakestroll6518 2 жыл бұрын
AND the drafts actually referenced him more directly AND the pitch to Washington Post specifically said "as you know she was beaten by her ex husband Johnny Depp" AND Articles from publications like USA Today immediately declared it was about him and she didn't correct them AND there are ACLU emails being a little too pleased that her op-ed was getting traction for the implicit connections AND so on and do forth
@_yuri
@_yuri 2 жыл бұрын
@@daffodil852 you see since the article was undoubtedly defamatory her admitting it was about johnny basically seals the deal.
@Venmerr
@Venmerr 2 жыл бұрын
@@daffodil852 that was the defense though they kept saying it was not about him.
@markc4008
@markc4008 2 жыл бұрын
@@daffodil852 I mean from what I can tell, large swathes of the verdict simply ignored reality. I mean the actual headline of the article said "I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced our culture’s wrath". Whether Heard lied about any sexual violence is irrelevant, because the headline is a statement of fact. She did speak up against it, and did face the wrath of our culture towards women who do so. Yet the jury found that defamed Depp, despite the fact the title of the article was not in any way to do with him.
@CynicalHistorian
@CynicalHistorian 2 жыл бұрын
You brought up an interesting video idea that I'd really like to see: What counts as precedence? Not just that jury trials generally don't contribute (there's exceptions), but which jurists' opinions are given more weight than others and why
@elephantman2112
@elephantman2112 2 жыл бұрын
There are lots of reasons why a jurist's opinion may be considered particularly important. Apart from seniority, they may be considered a specialist in a certain area of law, a persuasive exponent of a particular school of jurisprudence, or just a very good legal writer. But yeah, I'd be interested in seeing a long-form discussion on precedent too. I think lots of people would be interested in it.
@joe.5103
@joe.5103 2 жыл бұрын
I would also like to see this video
@raushanaljufri
@raushanaljufri 2 жыл бұрын
To my understanding, First of all, a clear difference must be made between 'binding' precedent and 'persuasive' precedent. Generally, a court is only bound (i.e. it MUST be followed) by the precedent made by the same court in a previous decision or a higher court in its hierarchy. For example, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York is bound by its own previous decisions, as well as the decisions of the courts above it in its hierarchy, that is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court. In theory, only precedents coming from these courts may be binding. Other judicial decisions may be considered 'persuasive'. So in the previous example, the US District Court in New York is not technically bound by the decisions of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (based in the west coast), but it may chose to follow it anyway, especially if the decision was well-reasoned. Those decisions are 'persuasive' but not binding. Courts may also overrule its own past decisions, but generally that is done very rarely, and only with very good reason. It also depends on the law being applied. According to the Erie Doctrine, when interpreting state law, state court decisions are also binding on federal courts. Returning to our previous example, if the US District Court in New York is applying say, New York State Law, then it is also bound by the interpretations of state law made by the state courts. (Please correct me if i'm wrong, I'm a law student, but not in the US, what I know comes only from what I read by myself) EDIT: I've been informed that the decisions of the first level courts (such as the federal district courts) are always only persuasive, but never binding.
@JVLeroy223
@JVLeroy223 2 жыл бұрын
@@raushanaljufri You seem to be well spoken and on your way. I hope you succeed in your career as an attorney, or whichever one you choose!
@darrishawks6033
@darrishawks6033 2 жыл бұрын
Sometimes they are given more weight because they're really good writers with very succinct analysis. Like Learned Hand. I have heard a lot of law school professors saying he should have been on the Supreme Court if it weren't for some scandal or something. Maybe an interesting thing to look into for a history channel. I don't know the details.
@KusuriyaV
@KusuriyaV 2 жыл бұрын
She also admitted in her testimony to writing the oped about Johnny Depp. So the jury didn't even need to assume the story referred to him.
@Tenchigumi
@Tenchigumi 2 жыл бұрын
@M Anderson Honestly, if Heard simply stuck to the game plan, she could have easily won. Did she speak out? Yes. Did she get backlash? Yes. Was she in a position where she could observe the power dynamics of men and women as a representative of domestic violence? Well, regardless of whether she actually WAS a DV victim, she was certainly portrayed as a rep for the cause and was embroiled in such controversy, so that was technically true. Now... did she write the article about Johnny? His name wasn't in it, so there's plausible deniability. All she had to do was not admit it was about Johnny. But she just. Couldn't. Help herself. Instead of just sticking to the literal wording of her article, she HAD to make it abundantly clear that everything was about Johnny, and in doing so HAD to insist she was a real DV survivor, and HAD to dramatize every incident far beyond plausibility or available evidence. And thus.
@prizefighter7607
@prizefighter7607 2 жыл бұрын
@@Tenchigumi also if she kept the claims of abuse minimal: rough grabbing, demeaning words, threats of violence, etc, she absolutely could have won. But she had to embellish, heighten, and exaggerate what purportedly happened that her photographic evidence in no way supported her claims. Like, the being punched by Depp (who was wearing a fist full of heavy rings) so many times she lost count, but her picture showed only the amount of bruising she’d have gotten from a botox injection.
@ttww1590
@ttww1590 2 жыл бұрын
In this context the point needed to be the readers were likely to know who was being refered to, not who the writer had in mind.
@jjthe
@jjthe 2 жыл бұрын
@@Tenchigumi I hate the notion that men have more power in a case of domestic violence. Men are often ridiculed when they do come forward with claims of abuse. When a male victim calls the police on their female abuser the man is still more likely to go to jail. Men have less power than women when it comes to domestic violence.
@acephas3
@acephas3 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed.
@ninjaman0003
@ninjaman0003 2 жыл бұрын
Something I'd love to see covered is types of juries and how a jury is selected in each separate case. I thought there was only one kind, the sequestered jury until I found out a few days ago.
@x--.
@x--. 2 жыл бұрын
INAL but it's a great rabbit hole! Civil juries, criminal juries, and sequestration is a rarity. That's a shame because there are a lot of busy-bodies who start doing research on their own (the internet is an incredible temptation). That's not a problem if the other jurists out them for admitting it (they can report it to the judge and the judge will ask them and then they can be dismissed) but if a jury member does the research and then doesn't say anything there's no chance of catching it. On a big jury less of a worry but on a small jury it can easily become an issue. In fact, if these jury members start talking and then admit to reading social media about the case it could provide additional grounds for appeal. Hopefully our Legal Eagle covers it.
@LamLawIndy
@LamLawIndy 2 жыл бұрын
Well, it differs from state to state (here in the US). For example, a jury in a misdemeanor case may be 6 jurors in a particular state; he same state may require 12 jurors in a felony case.
@ninamo3523
@ninamo3523 2 жыл бұрын
Especially considering most victims of domestic abuse are not able to sit on a jury for a domestic abuse trial because it brings back so much trauma. So those who have the most experience, are unable to help other victims.
@ninjaman0003
@ninjaman0003 2 жыл бұрын
@@ninamo3523 I dont think help is the word you meant. Having that kind of past would allow for a different view than most people, but I think 99 out of 100 would let it also let their past make them bias. So more than likely, the trial would be more than likely to be unfair. I wasn't born at the time but 3 decades after my mom got out of an abusive relationship, just hearing the guys name gives my mom shivers.
@privatesmith1560
@privatesmith1560 2 жыл бұрын
@@x--. that is not a shame. Many trials go on for months, in some cases years. You want to "imprison" jurors and destroy their private lifes for doing their civil duty? Also, I find it highly arrogant and strange that it is assumed US adults are capable to take "informed and independent decisions" when voting in elections despite all the biased MSM and SN messaging and election ads but deemed incapable of doing so in a highly publicised trial. Also, the judge is exposed to the same. By your logic all judges, especially on the supreme court, should be sequestered as long as they preside over major cases, basically for life.
@eustatic3832
@eustatic3832 2 жыл бұрын
It is crazy to think how this would have been a much different process if either of them had brought criminal charges; it s surreal that this is all about defamation. But people instead understand this to be a trial about abuse. Could we have avoided all defamation charges altogether if these people weren't rich celebrities?
@flyingtoastr
@flyingtoastr 2 жыл бұрын
In the United States, a person can't bring criminal charges. Only the state (the government, from your local DA or an AUSA for the federal government) prosecutes crimes.
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
Fun fact, if it had been a criminal trial, a lot of the evidence that utterly destroyed heard's credibility (I have a strong suspicion that the donate/pledge thing would have been blocked) wouldn't have been allowed at all. It would have been a very different trial.
@tamhuy10
@tamhuy10 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheBrothergreen some would have been bbut not others, we will never now
@Dave-yq7cj
@Dave-yq7cj 2 жыл бұрын
If these people weren't celebrities then WaPo wouldn't have published the op ed in the first place.
@idrisa7909
@idrisa7909 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheBrothergreen Heard already won her case about whether or not Depp abused her. 12 out of her 14 counts against Depp were proven in a court of law.
@Adirbal
@Adirbal 2 жыл бұрын
As someone who has followed the case since the first week (actually watched the trial live, not clips and tiktoks), and has listened the comments made by lawyers watching the trial at the same time, I feel like this summary/explanation of the details of the veredict are quite impartial and accurate. Ty LE, it has been quite frustrating to watch the internet be full of people commenting on the veredict that clearly have no idea what it is actually about, or even what defamation or actual malice is.
@phabiorules
@phabiorules 2 жыл бұрын
For real. It's so annoying to see people ask "Why haven't they closed this case yet?" As if the judge can just say "yeah I've seen enough" and decide that it's time for deliberation halfway through.
@Sahdirah
@Sahdirah 2 жыл бұрын
+
@mehere8038
@mehere8038 2 жыл бұрын
I'm also pretty shocked to hear here for the first time about the bond to appeal. That seems like a rather important fact to share, that no other channel covering this trial has mentioned in any way to my knowledge. That makes the difference in quality & accuracy here v the rest REALLY clear imo
@ML-yn9yu
@ML-yn9yu 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah LE summed it up very nicely without a hint of bias.
@CTA12356
@CTA12356 2 жыл бұрын
Popcorn planet was the worst offender. Glad we had LE to be informative and impartial
@Zamiroh
@Zamiroh 2 жыл бұрын
One thing I have seen people misunderstanding, an appeal does not mean a new jury trial. An appeal is asking a higher court to review certain aspects of the trail as they pertain to the law. A case can be overturned on appeal, or any number of things, but a higher court is not just going to say the jury reached the wrong verdict. It has to be based in the law.
@jermainerace4156
@jermainerace4156 2 жыл бұрын
Ideally this would be true, but tell that the Georgia state supreme court. They seem to have a penchant for overturning murder cases based on their own interpretation of the evidence, not for any legal reason, effectively saying "Even though the jury thinks the evidence was good enough, we don't".
@Zamiroh
@Zamiroh 2 жыл бұрын
@@jermainerace4156 criminal law and appeals are very different from civil law. However I cannot speak too much on Georgia jurisprudence.
@BayAreaJaybo
@BayAreaJaybo 2 жыл бұрын
@@jermainerace4156 Considering that there is far too much emphasis placed on rules and procedures and very little on circumstance or emotion, maybe what the GA SC is doing is not such a bad thing. Unless they're just overturning the convictions of white guys.
@johnr797
@johnr797 2 жыл бұрын
@@BayAreaJaybo don't worry, we'll get you on appeal
@kqatsi
@kqatsi 2 жыл бұрын
Yes, but "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence presented" is a legal conclusion, which is another way of saying "the jury reached the wrong verdict." In other words, the appellate court won't make its own credibility determinations, but it can consider whether the evidence was sufficient to find defamation. And here, I would be incredibly upset if they don't overturn the verdict against Heard, because no reasonable juror could find that any of the three statements constitute defamation, even if it's true that Heard never abused her. The article just was not defamatory, as a matter of law.
@candidwings5609
@candidwings5609 2 жыл бұрын
Edited to add: this is specifically about the decision on Amber Heard's counterclaim that 1 statement by Waldman was defamatory. I watched big chunks of this case, I'm pretty sure that police testified there was only one 911 call but a second pair of officers responded. The second pair of officers also testified that nothing was wrong and body cam footage showed no evidence that the place had been "roughed up." I also never heard evidence that a publicist or lawyer helped them plan that event. I might be remembering incorrectly or missed a moment that supports the statement, but that is my recollection. My guess as a layperson is that the specificity of the statement, and lack of evidence for such specifics, was what caused the jury to decide it was defamatory.
@jwatson181
@jwatson181 2 жыл бұрын
She made claims that were easily disproven. It is that's simple.
@keenanlarsen1639
@keenanlarsen1639 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the info. Makes sense to me.
@daffodil852
@daffodil852 2 жыл бұрын
@@jwatson181 the commenter is referring to the section b that got amber awarded 2 million, meaning in this specific point she didn’t not make any false claims.
@HumanTypewriter
@HumanTypewriter 2 жыл бұрын
Almost got it right just backwards, there was 2 calls but only 1 team responded.
@theanimerapper6351
@theanimerapper6351 2 жыл бұрын
@@HumanTypewriter there was also no smell of wine and the place wasn't roughed up. Makes you wonder why waldman said that
@ultimateninjaboi
@ultimateninjaboi 2 жыл бұрын
The fact that people cant understand that two people can both make untrue and damaging statements against each other is kind of... its telling of how we handle conflict as a society...
@slickspidey
@slickspidey 2 жыл бұрын
Trust me this fact will never be remembered with this lawsuit, social media follows such a dumb wave sometimes
@jermainerace4156
@jermainerace4156 2 жыл бұрын
Postmodern philosophy has pretty well pushed us to this point where once someone is labelled a victim, they are no longer thought of as fallible.
@BareBandSubscription
@BareBandSubscription 2 жыл бұрын
The fact you think both sides of this case are remotely equal in truth or lies is very telling of how we seek to inform ourselves before speaking as a society.
@BareBandSubscription
@BareBandSubscription 2 жыл бұрын
@@slickspidey Why would it be? Did you watch the trial? She was guilty as sin and they had nothing on him as far as defamation charges outside of a minor error of semantics in one of his former attorney’s statements. What I don’t understand is why people who are so clearly ignorant of the details believe they have ground to stand on in providing their thoughtful social commentary.
@misterpinkandyellow74
@misterpinkandyellow74 2 жыл бұрын
a disgusting filthy fence sitter coward pretending both sides are as bad as each other. Amber cut off part of Depps finger. Depp never laid a glove on Amber.
@aliabdaal
@aliabdaal 2 жыл бұрын
love the explanation, thanks Devin :)
@Sal3600
@Sal3600 2 жыл бұрын
"they both win" he says lmao not.
@avila.juan927
@avila.juan927 2 жыл бұрын
Didn't expect you here lol
@rosemaryzhang
@rosemaryzhang 2 жыл бұрын
Hmm you’re being a waste man aren’t you?
@zainmudassir2964
@zainmudassir2964 2 жыл бұрын
:)
@julielevinge266
@julielevinge266 2 жыл бұрын
But if she invented the entire story which has been proved so it’s more than likely that they did call police get no reaction so rough the place up & call them again? After what we’ve seen so far that’s very probable? Heard said she was defamed by her allegations being called a hoax? But it was a hoax??
@GAshoneybear
@GAshoneybear 2 жыл бұрын
3:54 - I think the bigger point is she ended up admitting she did write that piece about Johnny Depp. When Vasquez was examining her saying "Okay, so all these people are just going to lie for Mr. Depp?" Amber at this point is visibly rattled and frustrated and trying to overtalk Vasquez. After a bit more back and forth when Vasquez asks "So Mr. Depp is just that powerful?" Amber says, "Yes, and that's why I wrote the op-ed." Effectively admitting she did write it, at least part of it, about him.
@lillecathrine
@lillecathrine 2 жыл бұрын
That moment was also when she showed 'actual malice' to the jury because she showed she wrote it to try and take away his "power" with that exact response
@kylekondit9709
@kylekondit9709 2 жыл бұрын
I disagree. it was many moving pieces.
@GAshoneybear
@GAshoneybear 2 жыл бұрын
@@lillecathrine Exactly.
@BriandeLint
@BriandeLint 2 жыл бұрын
I don't think that would hold up, considering that statement could also be interpreted as her referring to men in general getting away with things because people don't hold them accountable.
@45heisman
@45heisman 2 жыл бұрын
@@BriandeLint but it did hold up to this jury. That's the point of a jury it couldn't been interpreted that way but it wasn't
@Jasmixd
@Jasmixd 2 жыл бұрын
Limiting the amount of punitive damages to a set value sounds like a law written by a very rich guy.
@Justanotherconsumer
@Justanotherconsumer 2 жыл бұрын
To be sure. If you make sure that punitive damages are capped, rich people can ignore that slap on the wrist. Any amount of fine or equivalent has to be scaled to the resources of the person offending to have any meaningful deterrent effect.
@dark_rit
@dark_rit 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Since to a rich person 350K can be a drop in the bucket, but to a normal person people have declared medical bankruptcy for less. In Norway and Finland for example speeding tickets are scaled to your level of income although Norway it's a flat 10% of your annual income for speeding tickets/if you make 10 million a year you're paying a million on a speeding ticket. It's less in Finland though.
@newuo141
@newuo141 2 жыл бұрын
@@dark_rit Yeah, on the Åland Islands (Finland) its a big thing in the paper each time the richest man on the island gets caught speeding. Huuuuge fines, scaled to his insanely large income. Good for the local economy every time though, I suppose 💰
@cptKamina
@cptKamina 2 жыл бұрын
@@dark_rit Yea any law with a fixed fine doesn't make doing it illegal, it just puts it at a cost.
@aaronmccullers384
@aaronmccullers384 2 жыл бұрын
I do feel the need to point out that the whole point of sueing someone is to make them pay for their wrongful acts, meaning that the whole punitive damages system to punish someone for their wrongful acts seems rather redundant. Also fun fact, this limit was created in 1987 which, counting for inflation, means that the intended limit was around $897,597.41 in today's dollars, which is a bit more reasonable and would actually hurt some upperclass people. Still, these laws really need to be updated to account for inflation.
@johnr797
@johnr797 2 жыл бұрын
"How can they both have defamed each other?" Well, I would hazard a guess to say that it's probably because they defamed each other.
@springtrap8434
@springtrap8434 2 жыл бұрын
r/technicallythetruth moment
@johnminehan1148
@johnminehan1148 2 жыл бұрын
Simple lesson: avoid people like these at any cost . . . .
@jedsithor
@jedsithor 2 жыл бұрын
Though technically it was his lawyer that defamed her.
@ikexbankai
@ikexbankai 2 жыл бұрын
And because they obviously abused each other! I’ll be shocked if he actually never ever abused her
@giantWario
@giantWario 2 жыл бұрын
@@ikexbankai Then watch the trial because everyone who watched the trial, not just the juries, concluded that he never abused her.
@cahyasatixoxo7207
@cahyasatixoxo7207 2 жыл бұрын
So what is “the penalty of perjury?” Because it seems like lying under oath is perfectly acceptable since no one gets penalized.
@DanLaw559
@DanLaw559 2 жыл бұрын
I've seen evidence of that first hand. I went to the police, mentioned it to members of the ACLU when I was with them, I told just about everybody I could and got nowhere. The perjury among other laws broken were done so by my ex-wife.
@MyLilPwny43
@MyLilPwny43 2 жыл бұрын
Lawmakers picking and choosing which laws to apply and when obviously.
@cheyenneb3088
@cheyenneb3088 2 жыл бұрын
Discretion. It's not worth their time. Truly, it isn't.
@Foolish188
@Foolish188 2 жыл бұрын
Perjury is a CRIME. To prove a crime juries must find the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil Lawsuits only need to be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. A far lessor standard. A Prosecutor would have to retry the case and try to Prove that someone Flat out lied on the stand, not probably lied.
@keoghanwhimsically2268
@keoghanwhimsically2268 2 жыл бұрын
@@cheyenneb3088 Of course it is. This was broadcast worldwide. Getting the word out you can lie with impunity on the stand without consequence will not redound to the benefit of society.
@Amarianee
@Amarianee 2 жыл бұрын
Something to note: at least in VA, compensatory damages are mandatory. The jury first came back with their verdict, but no amount of damages filled out somewhere (based on the 0 punitive, probably Amber's comp) and the judge sent them back saying they have to put something, even if it's a dollar.
@tiffyw92
@tiffyw92 2 жыл бұрын
Things like this make me smile. It implies that the jury didn't take long to come to the verdict in favor of Johnny, and the wait just came down to deliberating over the awarded damages to each party. I hear one of the jurors did an AMA on their Instagram and confirmed it was a compromise since not everyone could agree on the amounts.
@kimberleywilliams7802
@kimberleywilliams7802 2 жыл бұрын
@@tiffyw92 it was tiktok actually.
@tiffyw92
@tiffyw92 2 жыл бұрын
@@kimberleywilliams7802 Ah, okay. Apologies for my boomer moment.
@Rocket_E
@Rocket_E 2 жыл бұрын
@@tiffyw92 the TikTokker claiming to be a juror has been outed as an imposter and has removed his account. IMHO: there are far too many falsehoods surrounding this case, some of which run very deep. We none of us should feel confident that we have a good handle on it. There is way more to this whole affair than meets the eye, as is so often the case with 'hot' news items. (My 2 cents)
@tiffyw92
@tiffyw92 2 жыл бұрын
@@Rocket_E What? Would people really do that? Just go on the Internet and lie? Jk aside, that's disappointing. He sounded convincing, but I guess he was really vague. And yes, it's a good rule of thumb to not jump to conclusions based on some Internet memes or Twitter hastags... but Amber def didn't help herself at all in court and on live TV. And now she's gonna have trouble even paying for her appeal, especially that no major TV or film network are gonna take her.
@VihMelchior
@VihMelchior 2 жыл бұрын
I just want to say that Amber said under oath "the article I wrote about Johny [...]" She said very clearly that the article WAS about Johny
@CobisTaba
@CobisTaba 2 жыл бұрын
The discussion was if she is liable when she did not claim it was about him, before the trial. On trial she had to disclose off course, but that admission has no value in determining the damage she has caused.
@45heisman
@45heisman 2 жыл бұрын
@@CobisTaba well thats just not true. Also as the verdict form describes all it has to do is be obvious to somebody who isn't Johhny Depp that it's about him whether mentioned or not. There isn't a rational person with any knowledge of Johhny Depp being married to Amber heard that would interpret it as being about him hence it counts.
@aoki6332
@aoki6332 2 жыл бұрын
and that she wrote it 2 out of the 3 fact that the Johnny team needed to prove
@CobisTaba
@CobisTaba 2 жыл бұрын
@@45heisman that is not what I said. You misread me. I said her testimony itself did not damage him. The article did
@bubberjo2039
@bubberjo2039 2 жыл бұрын
I also recall her saying " it's not just about Johnny" when being crossed by Camille
@upasiensis
@upasiensis 2 жыл бұрын
This is an exemplary short summary of the US proceedings. I'd add only 3 short points. (1) In closing, Ms. Heard's lawyers pointed out that the police visits were mere minutes apart, so that there was not time for the consultation and evidence-fabricating alleged by Waldman. It is therefore not surprising that the jury ruled in her favour on that point, even if more generally they found against Ms. Heard on the issue of 'hoaxes'. If anything, this shows diligence, attention to detail, and a desire to do even-handed justice on the jury's part. (2) The references to evidence suppression by Ms. Heard's lawyers are remarkable given the number and scope of evidence applications in the UK trial (4 or 5 by my count). More accurately, the UK trial involved different defendants and a different set of rules of evidence. What was admitted or excluded in each case was therefore also different. (3) It was notable that Ms. Heard's lawyers did not rely on sexual abuse in closing. This suggests to me that they did not think that Ms. Heard had come up to proof on that point. The sting of the innuendo in the title of Ms. Heard's article was that she was a victim of sexual violence - the violator being Mr. Depp - so that omission on closing was quite significant.
@quentinj7236
@quentinj7236 2 жыл бұрын
"Sexual violence" does not necessarily mean a sexual intercourse type of violence. It could be a reference to violence against women or violence unique to the circumstance of being a woman in society. People are making too many inferences, including the fact that the article itself is "about" Depp. Yes, Depp could have been the source of the violence about which Heard spoke up. However, the article is specifically about the negative public treatment Heard suffered after having spoken out. Thus, it's not actually about Depp. It's about society.
@upasiensis
@upasiensis 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 Your argument might be more convincing were it not for the fact that the Court held more than once that the article was capable of bearing the defamatory meanings that Depp alleged and pleaded. Whether the article - specifically referred to in those pleadings as the "sexual violence" op-ed - actually bore those meanings then became a matter of fact for the jury, which found that they did.
@stevenn1940
@stevenn1940 2 жыл бұрын
​@@quentinj7236 ​ Also, if she *wasn't* trying to imply it against depp, it would be very easy to specify he wasn't someone who hurt her. That lack of specificity IS implying it. If I just broke up with a woman, got a restraining order, and I say "I've been a victim of abuse by an intimate partner," who are people immediately going to look at? However I could have said "I've been the victim of abuse by an intimate partner, not X, but in previous relationship(s)." Not hard to exclude someone you don't want to make the implication against.
@quentinj7236
@quentinj7236 2 жыл бұрын
@@upasiensis If you've read her article, please give me the fact or claim she explicitly made in the article that is false. The statement or claim being false is the first requirement under the legal definition of defamation. Judges can be wrong in their rulings and juries can be wrong in their verdicts. This jury didn't even properly assign a monetary amount when they initially thought they were finished. The judge had to send them back to do so. We'll see what other judges conclude on appeal.
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 The three statements that the jury found were untrue, implied a defamatory meaning about mr depp and were done with a higher than necessary standard for actual malice and awarded significant punative damages. Those ones.
@pyrobreather1
@pyrobreather1 2 жыл бұрын
Straight to the point and no fluff. I like the direction you're growing.
@tokenwhitenerd136
@tokenwhitenerd136 2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate you staying pretty impartial with this.
@diandrealine7744
@diandrealine7744 2 жыл бұрын
I've consumed an unhealthy amount of media about this trial and your reactions so far are my favourite. You could've easily sided with JD and take the slanderous way out by heaping on insult towards AH's legal team but you didn't. I remember in your last video you reacted to the video of AH's lawyer who was cross examining the JD's caretaker witness. The lawyer blurted an objection against what the witness said when it was him who asked the question. All of the other lawyer reacts videos that I have watched were quick to point out how ridiculous that move was, however, you simply said that that was not entirely stupid, that that does happen in court, and that these lawyers are also humans who make mistakes. Even in this video, you could've easily made a video roasting AH and her legal team for how bad their performance was in this trial. Especially since this was filmed after the verdict was handed down. You could've easily gained more views by piling on the insult, but you didn't. You just handed down the fact of the matter. Thank you for that!
@carn9507
@carn9507 2 жыл бұрын
Shame that Amber's side didn't hand down much in the way of facts. Heck, Amber managed to contradict herself within moments on several occassions during it too.
@Platinum_Squid
@Platinum_Squid 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Leave the insults and the comedy to SNL and the likes. If we are coming here we want the facts with minimum bias to help inform our own opinion and understanding.
@Truth4thetrue
@Truth4thetrue 2 жыл бұрын
"thank you for being neutral in a right or wrong case" yeah much thanks smfh
@cheesedtomeetyou8007
@cheesedtomeetyou8007 2 жыл бұрын
@@Truth4thetrue Yes, he should have sided more with Amber heard smh
@Truth4thetrue
@Truth4thetrue 2 жыл бұрын
@@cheesedtomeetyou8007 ok simp
@darkborneplus
@darkborneplus 2 жыл бұрын
As to Statement B in the counter claim, as someone that watched the entire trial, in the evidence presented to the jury, the officers stated that both police visits were based on the same call. that is what the jury was told hence making statement B false.
@Ghoulsli
@Ghoulsli 2 жыл бұрын
I understand how the jury came to that conclusion. What confuses me is why the cops said that in the first place since there absolutely is a 2nd call. Obviously it wasn't played for the jury but it's out there on the internet and it is quite clear that it was made by Heard's friend Rocky Pennington. Giving a lot more weight to Walman's statement.
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
False doesn't actually cut it, it has to be knowingly false or with reckless disregard of the truth. Did amber proactively imform Waldman that the two visits were the result of a single call? Otherwise, that sounds pretty nitpicky.
@darkborneplus
@darkborneplus 2 жыл бұрын
@@Ghoulsli we know this as the internet BUT the jury could only go by the evidence provided in court
@rosestewart1606
@rosestewart1606 2 жыл бұрын
thanks for explaining the cap on punitive damages...you're the first channel to properly explain the cap. And I think all of the others I've seen said that the jury just have known about the cap, that it must have been mentioned to them, and that they made a mistake. Your explanation makes much more sense...although I'm sure sometimes there is a juror who knows about the cap.
@janfaltys4692
@janfaltys4692 2 жыл бұрын
I was waiting for the LegalEagle breakdown! Well done!
@SuccessfulMentality94
@SuccessfulMentality94 2 жыл бұрын
I think you did a fantastic job explaining exactly what happened without bias for any side. It’s exactly the type of video I was looking for and felt extremely informative. My appreciation is over the top
@kingnick710
@kingnick710 2 жыл бұрын
Great video! I was hoping to hear more about the actual trial proceedings and lawyering that went on, it's the first time (and I'm sure for a lot of other people too) that I've watched a live trial that was real. It would be great to have a breakdown more like when you break down a tv show and give your opinion on the tactics of the lawyers! Maybe a part 2 is in order :)
@ssshar2176
@ssshar2176 2 жыл бұрын
Watch Legal Bytes. She did a daily recap all 6 weeks!
@thewildaly
@thewildaly 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making this as unbiased as possible. So many mainstream media articles out there keep arguing whether the jury made the right decision instead of informing.
@ashkebora7262
@ashkebora7262 2 жыл бұрын
Because mainstream media is just that: _media._ They're entertainers, not news. News isn't even a protected label, so they get to outright make up stuff all the time.
@SpringyGirl69
@SpringyGirl69 2 жыл бұрын
Well they did make the right decision, but I see what you mean, it’s always nice to get more context
@christophalexander4542
@christophalexander4542 2 жыл бұрын
While I completely agree - the (main) video should be impartial, I would like to know his *personal* opinion as well. (Which I guess means I don't completely agree? Eh, you get my meaning, I'm sure) Maybe he'll do a separate video on how he judges (pun intended) the evidence for/against them. I'd be curious, mainly because so far he's shown to be impartial, and I'd value his opinion. I know no one asks, but my gut feeling is that the verdict was right. I haven't really followed the issue (hence gut feeling), but from what she said, I think it's more likely that she is abusive than him. Drugs and alcohol notwithstanding. It's one thing to smash up unliving things in a rage, it's something completely different to hit a living being, let alone a human. (Also, obviously both have serious problems and definitely need help. The money should be spend on good psychiatrists instead of moving it around.)
@ElectricAlien577
@ElectricAlien577 2 жыл бұрын
@@christophalexander4542 Having watched a great many hours of testimony and cross examinations, i can say that each event of abuse that amber claimed happened was pretty clearly demonstrated to be a lie. And I dont think johnny will pursue legal collections action if she doesnt pay. He made it quite clear that the only thing he cared about is clearing his name.
@thewildaly
@thewildaly 2 жыл бұрын
@@christophalexander4542 I watched most of the trial and what happened was that Amber wasn’t honest. She had no credibility. Nobody corroborated her story. If they did, it was inconsistent. She almost never admitted to being wrong. She basically said stuff about audios and photos that didn’t match what people were hearing and seeing. She lied and was gaslighting everyone. That’s a very bad thing to do because when you don’t have a lot of evidence or contradictory stuff, then people have to rely on what you’re saying and she’s not credible. In fact, when it got to the part about how the photos were edited I finally was convinced that the whole thing could’ve been made up by Amber.
@RobRoss
@RobRoss 2 жыл бұрын
The last day on the stand Heard said “...and that’s why I wrote the article about him...” She admitted the article *was* about Johnny on the stand.
@KingBobXVI
@KingBobXVI 2 жыл бұрын
...was that in question? Her defense was that her claims were true, not that the article wasn't about him.
@silentsiren-de4eb
@silentsiren-de4eb 2 жыл бұрын
Uh duh. The entire point was whether the op-ed caused damage to his already failing career, not that she wrote it about him. Y'all are slow.
@RobRoss
@RobRoss 2 жыл бұрын
@@KingBobXVI yes it was. Until that statement she had always denied it was specifically about Depp. That was one of the things that had to be proven to count as defamation.
@jademusic1211
@jademusic1211 2 жыл бұрын
@@silentsiren-de4eb Not true. You're looking at it superficially.🙄 This was a *defamation* case. The entire point was to prove whether she purposely set out to destroy his name and reputation in that article..in other words, whether there was actual malice or intent. That's why Judge Penny didn't have the jury look at the Op-Ed as a whole, but only *one statement* in the article/title that infers that Amber was a victim of sexual violence at the hands of Johnny.
@silentsiren-de4eb
@silentsiren-de4eb 2 жыл бұрын
@@jademusic1211 Duh, I know this is a defamation case. You literally just regurgitated what I said by laying it all out. I made it simpler by excluding all the details. Yet overall the point is he claimed she defamed him and that caused damage to his reputation and career (even though he was already flopping like a dead fish before he met her, speaking as a former stan). So, there is no "smoking gun" that she stated it was about him. It was obvious it was about him and that is not the point (AGAIN, the point is whether it defamed him). That's literally what I am getting at lmao.
@DutchDread
@DutchDread 2 жыл бұрын
I would love to hear your opinions on both the lawyers and witnesses in this trial, specifically the expert ones, concerning what you think they did right and what you think they did wrong and how well you think they did in general?
@TheFamousMockingbird
@TheFamousMockingbird 2 жыл бұрын
To me, Depp did not have nearly as credible of a expert. Not board licensed, only spoke with heard for 12 hours over two meetings also is not qualified to make diagnoses such as BPD and histrionic complex. she is a clinical psychologist, not a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologist arent. Psychiatrists diagnose illness, manage treatment and provide a range of therapies for complex and serious mental illness. Psychologists focus on providing psychotherapy (talk therapy) to help patients. Pyschiatrits study and practice for avg 11 years before they are qualified and always have an MD. Psychologist do 6 years. Heards medical expert was much much much more qualified than Shannon Curry who on the stand, said she had diagnosed BPD and Histrionic syndrome over 12 hours on two sessions. The Psychiatrist who diagnosed heard with severe PTSD spent 26 hours with her and is qualified.
@DutchDread
@DutchDread 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheFamousMockingbird Maybe on paper, but in real life people who are more qualified on paper are not necessarily more knowledgeable. I've seen extreme incompetence hidden behind degrees and when it came down to actual argumentation, presentation, and professionalism Dr.Curry blew Ambers Expert out of the water imo. Bad arguments are bad arguments no matter who makes them, and I found the replies and criticisms Dr Curry had about the other womans work to be much better articulated, which to me spoke of greater insight and understanding concerning the subject matter, while the other womans replies felt more defensive rather than explanatory both in the substance of the argument itself, as well as the way she presented the arguments.
@georgina65
@georgina65 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheFamousMockingbird Heard’s expert was a psychologist definitely not a psychiatrist
@fmleverynameistakenx
@fmleverynameistakenx 2 жыл бұрын
​@@TheFamousMockingbird clinical psychologists are perfectly able and qualify to diagnose mental illnesses - in my country, most of the more complex diagnostic questionnaires are done and evaluated my them. let me tell you that you learn very little about psychology in medschool, hence the need for further education afterwards (btw, all specialties require that anyway). best regards, a med student
@ZoeAlleyne
@ZoeAlleyne 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheFamousMockingbird I was shocked at the outdated and unprofessional information Dr Curry was given and the incredibly narrow time frame in which she claimed to make her diagnoses and the incredibly linear view she had of them spoke very heavily of someone who is not an expert in Personality Disorders. I also do not understand why she was an dinner with Johnny Depp to be interviewed for the position. Maybe I'm used to following criminal law but that is wildly unprofessional to me. I am curious as to why Heard agreed to be interviewed by Depp's chosen expert even though Depp had refused to be interviewed in turn. I can't imagine why anyone would advise her to do that.
@richardaversa7128
@richardaversa7128 2 жыл бұрын
We are truly blessed to have such a knowledgeable and organized content creator. Thanks, Legal Eagle
@tjl4688
@tjl4688 2 жыл бұрын
But he isn't knowledgable.
@holden6104
@holden6104 2 жыл бұрын
@@tjl4688 and he's a leftist hack who doesn't want to talk about this trial except in the most benign way possible.
@efulmer8675
@efulmer8675 2 жыл бұрын
@@tjl4688 He's a long time corporate lawyer. In what way is he 'not knowledgeable'?
@ghostderazgriz
@ghostderazgriz 2 жыл бұрын
"It's capped at 350,000 in Virginia ... The jury wouldn't have known that" Wait... but I know that now... What happens if I know that now?
@m015t5
@m015t5 2 жыл бұрын
nothing
@keigoftw
@keigoftw 2 жыл бұрын
I think that means if you are called to participate in a civil trail in Virgina you'd be obliged to disclose it in the little 'addtional' box on your intake paperwork? But, I'm not a lawyer, so you should really not take my word for it and ask one. I feel like if Legal Eagle has taught us all anything, its that... and at least a dozen other things, but all of them are very important. :)
@adamb89
@adamb89 2 жыл бұрын
God d̷a̷m̵n̷ i̶̭͠t̸̘̀, y̸̟͌o̴͝ͅu̴̥͝'̷̗̂v̸̻̓ě̴͙ ḑ̴̛̪̣̬ö̶̟͇́͐̾͆o̷̢̯̿m̷̢̗̠͐e̷̞̪̱̽d̸͖̬̗̍̐̇͘ u̵̗̼̣͚͔͍̞̻̓̀̌͂̉s̵͙̖͉̺̺͚͛͂̉͛̿̏̇͂a̵̧̤̗̠̽͐̄̃̓̏͒̓͌̈̌͛̽̎l̵̩̘̲͎̖͎̲̘̐̒̽̔̃ͅl̸̨̢̹̥̦͚͕̮̞̪͈̈́̅!̸̧̡̹̞̩͈̰͍̭̏̓̂͂̀̃̊̐͐̃͛́̚
@Namari12
@Namari12 2 жыл бұрын
Now that you know it, you might be ineligible or at least less likely to be chosen for jury duty in civil cases tried in Virginia
@JebeckyGranjola
@JebeckyGranjola 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah that really doesn't make any sense. The state caps punitive damages, but doesn't disclose that because it thinks it will bias the jury from awarding said damages on account that they are deemed too low? Huh. Also It's the state law, which you are expected to know, so how on Earth would that be grounds for dismissal from a jury? Ridiculous! That in itself seems unconstitutional.
@JustATravelerr
@JustATravelerr 2 жыл бұрын
I love your channel so much! I think it is so important that the average person understands the basics of how our laws work in this country. With the little bit of background I have, it's still hard and you explain everything so well. Keep up the good work!
@Madeyemoody07
@Madeyemoody07 2 жыл бұрын
I’d love a video comparing and contrasting this case and the UK case and why they came to different outcomes.
@SineN0mine3
@SineN0mine3 2 жыл бұрын
Pretty blatant corruption in the UK court for a start
@ssshar2176
@ssshar2176 2 жыл бұрын
Watch BlackBeltBarrister
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
Amber wasn't on trial, so amber was allowed to submit only the evidence she wanted to submit. Everything else was excluded.
@texasforever7887
@texasforever7887 2 жыл бұрын
In the UK case Depp sued the tabloid the Sun for defamation not Amber.
@giantWario
@giantWario 2 жыл бұрын
Meh it's the UK. For some reason, the fact that the judge's son was working for the Sun didn't even constitute a conflict of interest in the UK. I lost all confidence in the UK judicial system with the trial of Count Dankula where they outright said that ''context didn't matter''.
@arrowsmith-p5256
@arrowsmith-p5256 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks
@andynystrom1519
@andynystrom1519 2 жыл бұрын
I'd like to hear more about what were likely the things that hurt Heard the most. I have some guesses but a lawyer with experience dealing with juries would likely have a different perspective.
@Highstar25
@Highstar25 2 жыл бұрын
Fabricating evidence (the photo with the colour balance edited and identical metadata) and contradicting her own team's witnesses... And letting herself be recorded saying 'tell everyone you're a victim of abuse, nobody will believe you.'
@persey7241
@persey7241 2 жыл бұрын
@@Highstar25 Also lying about donating to the charities
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
I think her decision to take the stand hurt her alot. She apparently has a personality disorder that causes her to superficially mimic human emotions in a very unconvincing way. I think her team failed to manage that disability and team Depp was able to wield it against her effectively. I think that after she testified, a lot of people were looking for reasons to dismiss her narrative. Plus, she was a terrible witness in general. You, know, because of all that really obvious perjury.
@imjashingyou3461
@imjashingyou3461 2 жыл бұрын
@@Highstar25 don't forget the bruise kit. She said it was for covering up bruises but in Hollywood it's the opposite.
@lakodamon
@lakodamon 2 жыл бұрын
The suppression of both the medical evidence and the UK decision. That's it. Anything else you've heard, is just PR.
@marsupialpiano
@marsupialpiano 2 жыл бұрын
I'm curious what you have ti say about the ACLU suing Depp to make him pay for the time it took to produce documents for the trial
@XdivineExp
@XdivineExp 2 жыл бұрын
I too am very curious about this. Is this at all normal? I don't think it makes sense for someone to be out a bunch of money for a case that doesn't really concern them, but do they usually sue one of the parties to recover any lost funds?
@Jenny-sq2pr
@Jenny-sq2pr 2 жыл бұрын
They actually are sueing? Wow. You'd think they have enough egg on thier faces over this
@MargaritaOnTheRox
@MargaritaOnTheRox 2 жыл бұрын
Next they'll sue him for the time it took them to write the article which defamed him.
@jacobite2353
@jacobite2353 2 жыл бұрын
@@XdivineExp Wouldn't that just be punitive? To say "don't take too long"? As a punishment rather than hurting finances. That makes sense to me
@xekusion
@xekusion 2 жыл бұрын
Since Amber owes Depp. Maybe Amber can just pay straight to the ACLU. She does have a close working relationship with them lol.
@PharmDiff
@PharmDiff 2 жыл бұрын
I don't think people understand how insane it would be to sequester a jury for 6 WEEKS. Imagine being required to not talk to your family or be able to look at a cell phone or computer for 1.5 months, just for this non-criminal trial.
@84rinne_moo
@84rinne_moo 2 жыл бұрын
Exactly this.
@Tigermaster1986
@Tigermaster1986 2 жыл бұрын
This needs to be higher.
@andrewk8636
@andrewk8636 2 жыл бұрын
Especially for how little juries are paid
@marvinp90
@marvinp90 2 жыл бұрын
They weren’t sequestered
@ashkebora7262
@ashkebora7262 2 жыл бұрын
@marvinp90 that's why they said, "it WOULD be..."
@larisalynnortiz8979
@larisalynnortiz8979 2 жыл бұрын
I love how you explain anything and everything in simple forms. Thank you.
@greg5028
@greg5028 2 жыл бұрын
Objection! We have not had a (full-length) video on objections yet! Love your content and would really love to see an educational video on objections (Both criminal and civil law), perhaps with an in-video objection game with footage from real cases with time to guess the correct objection before your expert explanation! Thanks for the consideration!
@nuanceblacksywin4868
@nuanceblacksywin4868 2 жыл бұрын
Objection: Objection. Legal Egal did that a month ago.
@Ironoclasty
@Ironoclasty 2 жыл бұрын
Sustained
@greg5028
@greg5028 2 жыл бұрын
@@nuanceblacksywin4868 I saw the shorts on the lawyer objecting to himself (Is that the one you're referring to?), but I think a full length video on the different types of objections in civil and criminal law would be really interesting with real life examples / "guess the correct objection game". I have found some online objection games or court room simulator, but like a lot legal educational material it's pretty dry. In addition to Devin being super entertaining and brilliant, he the only lawyer i've seen who has mastered the art of producing quality legal youtube content; he knows just the right amount detail and depth for his videos, and I think a full length video on objections with examples and explanation would be gold.
@nuanceblacksywin4868
@nuanceblacksywin4868 2 жыл бұрын
@@greg5028 Sure. I won't object to that. And it was the shorts video I was thinking about.
@jellyplayz687
@jellyplayz687 2 жыл бұрын
@@greg5028 that video would be 5 hours long if he went through all the objections
@jonathanperry8331
@jonathanperry8331 2 жыл бұрын
And the day before the trial ended Amber slipped up and accidentally admitted that the article was about Johnny Depp in front of the entire court.
@nuanceblacksywin4868
@nuanceblacksywin4868 2 жыл бұрын
Which was news to exactly 0 people.
@AlfredEiji
@AlfredEiji 2 жыл бұрын
@@nuanceblacksywin4868 The big up slip up was that she admitted to writing the article BECAUSE Depp was a “powerful man” and wanted to get back at him.
@GAshoneybear
@GAshoneybear 2 жыл бұрын
Yes! I made a post about that as well. It almost went like A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise got Jack Nicholson to admit what he did. Courtroom gold.
@reelgoodstory
@reelgoodstory 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, gold
@Autotrope
@Autotrope 2 жыл бұрын
People are making a bigger deal about this comment than is warranted IMHO. It had already been well established by the evidence provided that it was about Johnny by this point. I don't think Heard's side lost any significant ground by that admission.
@BlankeeStarcraft
@BlankeeStarcraft 2 жыл бұрын
Infuriating, especially in the wake of the Rittenhouse trial, how most people think jury verdicts determine precedent when it is in fact published legal opinions that do!
@Spoopball
@Spoopball 2 жыл бұрын
Whenever something like this happens, I always wonder how Devin/LegalEagle would do in either side of the court. He's not the end all be all of lawyers of course, but it's a fun thought process to pretend how a professional we know and trust would do
@spinecho609
@spinecho609 2 жыл бұрын
It depends
@Magmafrost13
@Magmafrost13 2 жыл бұрын
Here's a question I think we all want answered: Did Heard commit perjury? Is perjury a thing in civil cases?
@spiderlily723
@spiderlily723 2 жыл бұрын
It's is absolutely illegal, but it's rarely persecuted in civil cases (more so in criminal ones). She did commit perjury (multiple, I think, but 'I hit him' -> 'I never landed a hit on him' is most infuriating one, next to her word-play with pledge/donate - there is also issue of her tastifiying different than she did in the UK's case against The Sun), but I heard there are some investigations of her?
@johannvonbabylon
@johannvonbabylon 2 жыл бұрын
Perjury is indeed a thing in civil cases. Not even a trial is necessarily a prerequisite for perjury. Signing a false affidavit or lying in a deposition counts as perjury too. Lying is pretty much either 100% legal (when you haven't sworn an oath) or 100% illegal (when you have).
@jcspoon573
@jcspoon573 2 жыл бұрын
That's your question? My question is how can they have shown that Depp DID indeed commit abuse of Heard, yet also her talking about it was defamatory? This seems like the jury overreaching and Heard being a very unsympathetic victim coupled with (pun unintended) Johnny Depp being very popular and charming. Then again, it's also just rich people being awful. Whoever I found for in this case, I would have awarded them only $1.
@shitlista4283
@shitlista4283 2 жыл бұрын
Not sure about her, quite possible, but Depp sure did. For example, the video of him throwing stuff around was dated months before his mother died. So yeah.
@TheaDoraRosa
@TheaDoraRosa 2 жыл бұрын
A lot of the news articles about her committing perfury were planted by Depp's team. Like his lawyer filed a complaint in LA so they could run the headline "Amber heard invesitgated for perjury in LA" even though they didn't care in to pursue anything in LA.
@JennaGetsCreative
@JennaGetsCreative 2 жыл бұрын
Question: What happens if a juror knows about the punitive damages cap? Since this case was aired publically and the judge stating that the punitive amount would be changed according to statute was part of that public stream, this means a ton of potential future Virginia jurors now know there's a limit.
@aaronmccullers384
@aaronmccullers384 2 жыл бұрын
Probably nothing unless said juror was trying to heavily influence the verdict based on that one bit of info (in which case they might be at fault for being overly prejudiced against one side instead of trying to uphold the law or spirit of the law). In all honesty though, I doubt that a court would kick someone out for actually knowing the law since that seems really counter intuitive and would look bad for said court if word got out that they didn't want the jury to act based on the law. TL;DR: It depends but probably.
@walterco7701
@walterco7701 2 жыл бұрын
the chances of another case like this with the figures involved seem low to me, but I suppose if people remember this tidbit in the future they would potentially think to up the compensatory figure because they know there's a cap on the punitive.
@JennaGetsCreative
@JennaGetsCreative 2 жыл бұрын
@@walterco7701 Which is exactly why they weren't supposed to know about the punitive cap in the first place. On one hand, this could be something lawyers feel is necessary to ask about in jury selection, but on the other hand asking in and of itself informs the juror that a cap exists.
@user-gx8dl1dt2y
@user-gx8dl1dt2y 2 жыл бұрын
@@JennaGetsCreative You could ask some roundabout question on familiarity of Virginia law without ever specifically asking about the punitive damages cap or really anything that pertains to the case at hand. It's not an exact science, but neither is jury selection. It's all about generalities and how those might lend themselves to one side or the other.
@jermainerace4156
@jermainerace4156 2 жыл бұрын
The chances that such a person exists are slim and most of those types likely to know are easily weeded out: one of the questions you are bound to be asked during selection will have to do with certain jobs that people hold that may influence their opinion or knowledge on a subject. For example I was a juror candidate for a criminal trial once and one of the many many questions we were all asked (the juror pool was large enough that questions were asked to the entire group all at once instead of individually) was if we had ever worked for law enforcement, including as security guards or correctional officers. None of us who said we had were selected for the jury. As a note: The courts do NOT want expert jurors, they want the jurors to listen to the expert witnesses and use those opinions, not the juror's own expert opinion, no matter how good it is. The reason for this is because the jury is only supposed to decide based on the evidence PRESENTED and the arguments that were ACTUALLY MADE, not the arguments that a juror thinks they /should/ have made. After all, there may be very valid reasons why certain evidence was not presented or arguments weren't made that the jurors are not privy to.
@to2tutustoo
@to2tutustoo 2 жыл бұрын
Question regarding Adam Waldman. Since Waldman was an attorney speaking on behalf of his client (Depp), and the jury found that Waldman’s statement was defamatory, can Depp make a claim against Waldman to recoup the damages awarded to Heard for his statement? Like is that something that malpractice insurance would cover?
@ttww1590
@ttww1590 2 жыл бұрын
Came here for this question.
@--julian_
@--julian_ 2 жыл бұрын
no because he was an agent of depp, like a spokesperson
@--julian_
@--julian_ 2 жыл бұрын
and he has made clear that it wasn't about the money
@macmcleod1188
@macmcleod1188 2 жыл бұрын
I've seen lawyers who said yes he could but everyone agrees depp would never do that. What gets me is that what the lawyer said was true and still found to be defamatory. But then I read it was a negotiation between two factions in the jury.
@ElectricAlien577
@ElectricAlien577 2 жыл бұрын
@@macmcleod1188 Where can i read the jury negotiations?
@d.s.bernard8907
@d.s.bernard8907 2 жыл бұрын
Most of anything in this case I heard about had me thinking “how is this relevant?? How are they even allowed to be talking about this right now given what the case is about?”
@giantWario
@giantWario 2 жыл бұрын
It's a civil case, they can talk about whatever the hell they want, it just doesn't mean it's gonna help them. For Johnny's team, the goal was to show Heard as a compulsive liar in all aspects of their life together so as long as it showed Heard as untrustworthy, they talked about it. And for Heard's team...well I really don't know what they were going for most of the time admittedly, especially when they went on that tangent about Johnny falling asleep in weird places and how he once wasted ice cream by falling asleep while eating it.
@carrot708
@carrot708 2 жыл бұрын
@@giantWario Depp's team's goals: Prove Heard wrote the Op-Ed Prove it was about Depp Prove the claims it made were false Prove its stories, anecdotes and examples were false Prove that it was written with a malicious agenda, by a lying person If they failed one of these, they failed, at least for that specific count of defamation. Heard's teams goals: Prove the op-ed had no impact on Depp's reputation that he wasn't doing to himself (This is why they harped on about drugs and aggression to other people so much) Prove *ANY* of the op-ed's claims true. They only needed to prove one of the things they claimed and it wasn't defamation. They couldn't even do that.
@hydrolito
@hydrolito 2 жыл бұрын
Probably making a mistake and didn't learn.
@quentinj7236
@quentinj7236 2 жыл бұрын
@@giantWario Depp was often so wacked out of his mind on alcohol and/or drugs how can he have any credibility in terms of even remembering what he said or did to Heard? Perhaps that's what the defense was intending to show. Unfortunately, the jury along with you somehow didn't absorb that.
@giantWario
@giantWario 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 Yes grandpa, everyone who drinks or do drugs becomes violent and forgets about it in the morning, that's totally how it works. Unfortunately for you, Depp had a lot of evidence backing up everything he said while Heard was constantly proven to be lying (although most of the time it wasn't even necessary since she constantly contradicted herself).
@Twelvestrings
@Twelvestrings 2 жыл бұрын
The Code section you cited refers to Courts not of Record. The Depp v. Heard case was in a circuit court, which is a court of record. Code of Virginia, § 1-212. Courts of record. "Courts of record" means the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and the circuit courts. There are different bond requirements for circuit courts. You'll want to look at Code of Virginia, § 8.01-676.1, which deals with security for appeals in Circuit Courts (Subsections B & C are the relevant sections). She'll only need to post the full damages bond if she wants to stay execution of judgment.
@orlandoalessandrini2505
@orlandoalessandrini2505 2 жыл бұрын
Be careful, his minions will come out and try to challenge you.
@Heirllionaire
@Heirllionaire 2 жыл бұрын
"A Dark Challenger suddenly appeared.."
@hakancarlsson2881
@hakancarlsson2881 2 жыл бұрын
You should start the post with OBJECTION! 👍
@DavionAngeles
@DavionAngeles 2 жыл бұрын
I understand he may have cited the wrong code, but isn't his point still valid? He said she will have to pay a bond to appeal, and that bond would cost millions. 10 mil is millions. And aren't attorney fees required as well?
@jadedspades
@jadedspades 2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely correct. It is weird that LegalEagle got this wrong. I knew about this code when listening but you cited the law brilliantly 👏
@basicindiebro
@basicindiebro 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for uploading on this one. I’ve been graduating and moving out this month so I haven’t had a ton of time to follow the trial, but I was wondering what the verdict would mean going forward.
@huskytail
@huskytail 2 жыл бұрын
Watch it when you find some time, it was both interesting and eye-opening. Also, you can find the uncensored audios on KZbin, which give an incredible context and additional information.
@pattygould8240
@pattygould8240 2 жыл бұрын
@@huskytail it was a public exhibition of private pain. It's really pathetic that people treated failed relationship as entertainment.
@tink6225
@tink6225 2 жыл бұрын
@@pattygould8240 where the hell did you see people using it for entertainment?
@floatippity
@floatippity 2 жыл бұрын
Take time to watch. It’s very eye opening.
@pattygould8240
@pattygould8240 2 жыл бұрын
@@tink6225 the person I replied to is recommending it to the person they replied to. It's literally been half of the stories Google recommended since the beginning of the trial and most of the videos KZbin has recommended. It's not news, it's not educational, it's entertainment for voyeurs.
@slusheewolf2143
@slusheewolf2143 2 жыл бұрын
30 seconds into the video and it reminds me why people don't usually go to court for defamation; there is a small truth in rumors most of the time. If you got actual dirt on you, even small dirt, and are going against a monster, that dirt will be brought up in front of hundreds (in this case millions) of people. Your actions will be scrutinized and your privacy played like toys.
@Flippwn1
@Flippwn1 2 жыл бұрын
most people don't go to court over it because its an unreasonably hard case to prove, and the invasion of privacy goes both ways. Which is why the Depp win is so astounding. In reality, if there was any defamation case that would actually succeed, it was this one. The trial was so one sided, I cannot believe that people are still refusing to see the evidence to stand behind Heard. Everything she submitted was demonstrated to be faked. Edited photos, edited recordings, tipping off TMZ multiple times, edited video, staged photos, and not to mention the handful of times Heard got confused in even her own lies on the stand. She admitted to actual malice in the final cross examination, which imo, sealed the deal. I absolutely hate the talking point that this decision will be worse on abuse victims, because it presupposes Depp to not be a victim of abuse, when everything we have seen shows the opposite. Amber Heard has done unspeakable amounts of damage to the Me Too movement. She used it as a tool, manipulating even the ACLU, hurting the credibility of both the organization and the movement.
@nimrodery
@nimrodery 2 жыл бұрын
Well if it's true it's not defamation, so obviously you wouldn't go to trial like that unless it was your intention to lie or conceal the truth. Not sure what "small dirt" means in this context. A teensy bit of abuse?
@sweepingtime
@sweepingtime 2 жыл бұрын
"How can they have both defamed each other?" Well, I'm not sure that there's some universal rule where if you defame one person that other person becomes too good to defame you back.
@Kebersox
@Kebersox 2 жыл бұрын
No, but if someone lies about you and then you claim they are lying about you, it seems a bit of an oxymoron for both to be considered defamatory.
@jermainerace4156
@jermainerace4156 2 жыл бұрын
It is actually a significant part of the post-modern thinking which has crept into western civilization that anyone who is a victim cannot then victimize their oppressor. This is why certain classes of people seem to be "protected".
@alexp8785
@alexp8785 2 жыл бұрын
@@Kebersox that's not what happened lol. If you lie about me and I lie about you we both lied. Lol
@deViant14
@deViant14 2 жыл бұрын
@@alexp8785 it's certainly not that black and white. Everyone in the world including the jury knows Amber Heard lied about domestic violence. The question is did they set JD up in that exact way. I don't think anyone knows how the jury determined they didn't.
@work90
@work90 2 жыл бұрын
@@alexp8785 I don't think he's referring to Johnny and Amber
@ChristianNeihart
@ChristianNeihart 2 жыл бұрын
I appreciate you not making this a spectacle as so many other news outlets and platforms have.
@TheBLGL
@TheBLGL 2 жыл бұрын
I second this. Yay to Legal Eagle for not using this circus to gain more followers.
@RonquixoteDIII
@RonquixoteDIII 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah hopefully seeing people make TikTok’s of court cases for clout goes away.
@ChristianNeihart
@ChristianNeihart 2 жыл бұрын
@@RonquixoteDIII if there was a way to describe this entire thing it would be Carol Baskin 2: Somehow Even Dumber.
@connor_phillipz5689
@connor_phillipz5689 2 жыл бұрын
The fact that this trial was a spectacle is incredibly important. The world needed to see the facts in order for Johnny to truly clear his name. If the trial happened behind closed doors and the exact same verdict was reached nothing would change. The fact that the trial was available for all to see is a huge win not just for Depp, but for all victims of domestic abuse.
@dwellinginerised
@dwellinginerised 2 жыл бұрын
@@connor_phillipz5689 I agree. Even now though Depp has won and the jury found Amber liable for lying about everything she claimed (and she's shown to be pretty damn insane), every mainstream media outlet is claiming this was a trial of "misogyny." The gaslighting is hilarious, as if millions of people haven't watched every single second of the trial and seen Amber's lies methodically debunked one by one.
@Zarkawi17
@Zarkawi17 2 жыл бұрын
Just want to point out in case people weren't aware, but the punitive damages being reduced to 350k instead of 5mil was because of Virginia state law. It was not simply the judge's decision, she was just following the law by doing that. Edit: I guess Devin explains this later in the vid, woops! Oh well, who knows if everyone actually watches the whole vid, I'll leave this up still.
@wiseass2149
@wiseass2149 2 жыл бұрын
It's imperative to remind people of that. That said it's funny to me how much this trial brought out of people.
@hope-cat4894
@hope-cat4894 2 жыл бұрын
It seems odd that they jury shouldn't know about that. That seems very important so they know to be reasonable when awarding punitive damages. They wanted him to get $5 million which is a wildly different number, and it's been repeated in the news as result. Seems like a detail that should have been in the jury instructions. 🤷‍♀️
@Zarkawi17
@Zarkawi17 2 жыл бұрын
@@hope-cat4894 I think Devin also mentioned that they do it so that the jury specifically doesn't shift the punitive damages over to the compensatory side instead. For the record, though, 350k as a cap on the PUNISHMENT amount seems extremely low to me considering how high profile the two parties were in this case. On the one hand I get how 350k is more than enough to deter the average person, but I'm unsure how much that'd matter in a lot of defamation cases. It just makes me think of the episode of 30 Rock where Tracy realizes that he can get away with doing whatever he wants on TV if he just pays a fine to the FCC (cause he's rich, so he doesn't care at all about a fine). I just hope no one looks at it and says, "Oh only 350k to defame somebody? Sign me up!"
@cericat
@cericat 2 жыл бұрын
@@Zarkawi17 Yes Devin mentioned it. And honestly getting people not to make slanderous comments is impossible, you'd think cases like this would make them at least think about it but nope that hasn't been my experience, but good luck to someone without a lot of money and a good legal team proving you were damaged, defamation cases are a pain when you're the victim to prove your case sufficiently.
@anthony.m.morgan
@anthony.m.morgan 2 жыл бұрын
I'm kinda wondering what the liability is towards Elaine's defamatory statements about the jury, judge, and the opposing lawyers in the case of Depp v. heard. would you be able to give your legal opinion on this as well as the potential of perjury against amber heard as she was obviously lying on the stand?
@discworldfan
@discworldfan 2 жыл бұрын
i would like to know this too.
@dancovich
@dancovich 2 жыл бұрын
As the vídeo says, you can sue anyone for any reason you claim. If any of those people want to seek damages they're free to try.
@HydraxSly202
@HydraxSly202 2 жыл бұрын
I have been very curious about all of that, as well.
@ramigilneas9274
@ramigilneas9274 2 жыл бұрын
I was baffled when she made all of those defamatory accusations … directly after a trial in which her client got 2 million dollar for the similarly defamatory accusations of Waldman.
@carn9507
@carn9507 2 жыл бұрын
I felt a lil sorry for Elaine at the beginning of the trial saddled with a client I had already learnt was a liar and abuser (mostly by the audio recordings that have been around for past couple of years) but noticing weird and unprofessional behaviour during the trial (like when Elaine mocked Depp's talking style) that sympathy for Elaine started to drop. Now after her disgusting attitude and blaming everyone but her own client's blatant lies and contradictions? Elaine comes across almost as delusional as her client. We saw the trial, Elaine, we know you're talking absolute bullcrud. And for god's sake STOP exploiting real survivors and the metoo movement for your own gain just as Heard has been all these years.
@Worthyfool
@Worthyfool 2 жыл бұрын
Wow. That was informative as hell. You're such a great, interesting speaker and it really aids in the understanding of concepts that otherwise would be completely foreign to me.
@Autotrope
@Autotrope 2 жыл бұрын
I would be interested in an opinion on Heard's lawyer doing media interviews following the verdict, making claims that the jury acted improperly. I'm no lawyer but this seems as if it might usually be frowned upon, is it? Is it common?
@korytoombs886
@korytoombs886 2 жыл бұрын
Lawyers do this all the time. Not only that, it would be protected under the first amendment.
@trogdor20X6
@trogdor20X6 2 жыл бұрын
The judge was 100% irresponsible in not sequestering them jury and televising the trial. Such a wrong move for a case like this.
@Autotrope
@Autotrope 2 жыл бұрын
Seems kind of a dick move to blame the jury. Do you think people would have any sympathy for that argument? People who didn't watch the trial perhaps?
@yaoiboi60
@yaoiboi60 2 жыл бұрын
Disagreeing with the jury is legal.
@applenewmoon4402
@applenewmoon4402 2 жыл бұрын
@@trogdor20X6 she lost
@Krill_all_health_insuranceCEOs
@Krill_all_health_insuranceCEOs 2 жыл бұрын
What I've always loved most about LE is that he is both a Legal, and an Eagle. That's talent. That's why I always trust LE to bring me all my tasty legal news nuggets since 2018.
@eddiek8179
@eddiek8179 2 жыл бұрын
She has to pay the charges, that much is certain but is she also paying for his legal fees? That's probably in the millions as well, I'm assuming.
@Djorgal
@Djorgal 2 жыл бұрын
There is going to be a hearing, I think that's for the 24th of June, to decide that. But the answer is almost certainly "no".
@kenconnelly773
@kenconnelly773 2 жыл бұрын
@@Djorgal no judgement will be paid for years anyway. This will go into appeals.
@kelvindoang1228
@kelvindoang1228 2 жыл бұрын
@@kenconnelly773 do you even watch the video? In order to appeal she need to deposit full Amount of the dammage to court and then she cAn appeal
@mutleyeng
@mutleyeng 2 жыл бұрын
no, there are no costs - depp pays his legal fees, heard pays hers - if the credit card stretches to it
@kenconnelly773
@kenconnelly773 2 жыл бұрын
@@kelvindoang1228 2 things. 1) she either has to post an amount equal to the judgment OR an amount approved by the judge, if you paid closer attention to the video you would know that. She’ll likely ask for a lower bond. 2) even if she has to post the full amount of the judgment, you never know who might take up her cause, and she does have supporters.
@Visceralreality
@Visceralreality 2 жыл бұрын
If she had an insurance policy to cover her court costs, would the insurer cover the lawyer fee's then dispute the judgement or do they bail out on the legal fees as well after a verdict of malice being found?
@teemyoutube2066
@teemyoutube2066 2 жыл бұрын
The insurance policy may or may not have covered costs... but once she's found liable she has to pay it back to the insurance company. You cannot lie and defame someone and have insurance cover it.
@telanana
@telanana 2 жыл бұрын
I'm honestly curious how true the rumors I've been hearing about how the jury wasn't kept isolated from the social media content surrounding the trial (memes, tiktoks, etc) actually are. I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems weird to have a trial live-streamed and not have measures in place to prevent the jury from seeing biased content on social media that could influence their decision. Is there any chance we'll get information on that directly from the court rather than the he-said, she-said we're going to get from their lawyers?
@WelcomeBackMeHere
@WelcomeBackMeHere 2 жыл бұрын
I mean they aren't rumors, it goes without saying that they could have looked stuff up when they weren't in court, but they were instructed not to. It's basically an honor system. It would be completely unreasonably expensive for courts to sequester juries for over a month for the sake of civil suits like this. It's just never gonna happen. Imagine if a court said you have to stay basically in a prison without any contact with the outside world for 7 weeks. Would you be happy to participate in jury duty? And who is paying for this? Your food, your accommodations.. So yeah, they could have looked stuff up. As could any jury in a civil suit. It is what it is. Ironically, Amber's lawyer Elaine is arguing that they didn't get their mountains of evidence into court because it was disallowed by the judge. How can she also argue that it was detrimental to her case that the jury could see the media, wouldn't that mean they could have seen that "mountain of evidence" that was kept from them?
@XiaoYueMao
@XiaoYueMao 2 жыл бұрын
people worry too much, the jury already SAW the whole trial live, that IS what their job was afterall, if they are seeing biased content afterwards they 1. likely already agreed with said bias, and 2. they already know the full facts of the trial (they were LITERALLY there afterall) so that the bias doesnt sway them
@XiaoYueMao
@XiaoYueMao 2 жыл бұрын
@@WelcomeBackMeHere "Ironically, Amber's lawyer Elaine is arguing that they didn't get their mountains of evidence into court because it was disallowed by the judge." funnily enough, this is what actually happened to Depp in the UK, he was not allowed to submit basically any evidence whatsoever, UK has extremely high burdens of proof on the one being defamed to prove they were defamed, unlike the US that requires the one alleged to be doing the defamation to prove they werent doing defamation
@murderoustendencies
@murderoustendencies 2 жыл бұрын
​@@WelcomeBackMeHere not if the opposite narrative was being pushed by a million dollars machine, bots and algorithms like it seems to have been.
@neeneko
@neeneko 2 жыл бұрын
@@XiaoYueMao ahm, you have it the wrong way around. UK law is notoriously favorable to the person claiming defamation, even to the degree that only speaking true things about the person is not sufficient defense. Public figures have been using the law to go after reporters for decades now because showing that every thing you said was accurate still will not get you out of a defamation suit as long as they can claim you did it 'with malice'.
@joshuaclare4860
@joshuaclare4860 2 жыл бұрын
Something I've disliked about this entire case is just how much of a media circus it's been. While the entire 'televised court case' concept certainly isn't a new one, the Depp v. Heard case has felt intriguingly more vitriolic as it's one of the first major cases that's been latched onto by the ebb and flow of modern social media. Parts of the case have been clipped and stiched into 'x dunking on y' compilations that detract from the severity of the case as a whole, all-the-while every aspect of the thing has been funnelled into whatever ideological narrative you can think of. This isn't a just a case about celebrity domestic abuse anymore, it's a fragmented melodrama weaved from a real, genuine source. This comment isn't intended to be pro Depp or Heard, but rather an observation on the nature of how the court case has been - for lack of a better phrase - consumed by an audience.
@ms.cellaneous4380
@ms.cellaneous4380 2 жыл бұрын
I think how you said this is really important, and what I'm coming to understand is that depending on the social media you engage with, the last six weeks have likely exposed you to curated snippets that are meant to be engaging for either side.
@wyskass861
@wyskass861 2 жыл бұрын
Sure, but social media is just a part of life now, and everyone has something to say about something. It's also fundamental to the legal system that court proceedings are public. Having it televised is just ensuring that right in cases of high public interest.
@philwill0123
@philwill0123 2 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, Johnny Depp won. The law lost. This wasn't about reputation. This was a rich man and (formerly) rich ex wife playing out "who was the biggest victim" in a toxic relationship. Those who really lose? Every victim of domestic violence, who have even less recourse. Every civilian defamed in print who don't have the finances and luxury of going into court to reclaim their livelihoods and lives, and don't have PR machines. Other loser is social media. Because regardless of the case, it was alway team Depp v team heard. People talking due process was talking bull. The dye was cast. And people still don't care about the findings. Used to like Depp l, and had no real opinion on Heard. Now detest both of them to be honest
@brittb645
@brittb645 2 жыл бұрын
I have to wonder if the appeal can be made based on the fact that the trial was so public and the jury wasn't sequestered. If this were a criminal case, having a juror receive a text that disparaged the defendant would have been problematic.
@joshuaclare4860
@joshuaclare4860 2 жыл бұрын
@@wyskass861 See, the thing with it is that is that I don't necessarily have an issue with the whole concept of the idea of the televised court case. Do I think it's a bit strange? Yeah, but ultimately - like you said - there's a public interest and people want to leverage that. Where my issues lie is in how exactly our current social media envrionemnt has taken the typical narrativising of court cases like this and cranked it up to 11. I do understand though that it's something we just have to accept, and I hope that we in general are able to remember that, when it comes to things like this, that we have the ability to just step back and realise that this doesn't *really* affect us on the day-to-day.
@dCash117
@dCash117 2 жыл бұрын
I have refused to keep up with this trial, specifically waiting on you to do a video about it
@No_art_for_shiva
@No_art_for_shiva 2 жыл бұрын
Same
@SyFy412
@SyFy412 2 жыл бұрын
Idk watching it with legalbytes was pretty nice. Having legal professional, medical professionals and others weigh-in as it went on was enjoyable
@Blatant.Obscurity
@Blatant.Obscurity 2 жыл бұрын
That's a terrible way to experience a trial. You're trusting someone to give you their opinions and insights on something you don't have firsthand knowledge before making your own judgments. This is part of what's wrong with the world, people not using their own kinds and relying on others to make decisions for them.
@nathanloomis5141
@nathanloomis5141 2 жыл бұрын
@@Blatant.Obscurity Why would someone with no expertise on a subject ignore the perspective of people who do have that expertise? Even if I, who has no relevant expertise on this subject, were to watch every day of the trial myself, I wouldn't be in a position to make an informed opinion on the subject. Listening to people who actually know what they're talking about isn't a problem, it's the best way to not jump to BS conclusions on a subject because of your own biases. The important thing is to remain skeptical of others takes on things, and to not rely wholly on one source of information.
@randomwerewolf1099
@randomwerewolf1099 2 жыл бұрын
@@Blatant.Obscurity So we all have to keep up with the trial of two celebrities suing each other? That sounds exhausting and I have better things to do. Besides we're not just trusting 'someone' to give their opinions and insights - LegalEagle is a legal expert, so waiting for his opinion is valid. Part of what's wrong with the world today is people thinking their own opinion is just as valid - or more valid - than experts in that field. I prefer to learn from experts than confidently getting things wrong because I refused to listen to anyone but myself.
@JacobDean88
@JacobDean88 2 жыл бұрын
You were the first person I thought of after it was all over... I thought, Can't wait to see LegalEagle do this!!
@kettle_of_chris
@kettle_of_chris 2 жыл бұрын
lmao - same here
@MomijiSour
@MomijiSour 2 жыл бұрын
Regardless of who was in the right, or what abused happened where, it's insanely creepy how the internet turned this trial into a giant meme
@samwallaceart288
@samwallaceart288 2 жыл бұрын
A lot of the MGTOW types jumped right on this as a gotcha moment against the excesses of MeToo. Those jokers are losers. But the trial is still important to the larger conversation about abuse survivors vs gender politics and believeallwomen, and I'm glad it was televised so that her lawyers doubling down on misinformation can be seen through
@Drbeattles
@Drbeattles 2 жыл бұрын
not really. it was about JD possibly the 2ed most loved actor on the internet. and well there was alot of bufoonery in this trial like ambers face when she said "my dog steped on a bee" and ect. the internet will meme anything.
@ignitionfrn2223
@ignitionfrn2223 2 жыл бұрын
0:55 - Chapter 1 - No one is going to jail 8:35 - Chapter 2 - Can Johnny Deep sue the washington post ? 9:50 - Chapter 3 - What about an appeal of the jury's verdict 11:30 - End roll ads
@nyillestdrpa
@nyillestdrpa 2 жыл бұрын
I love how they claim the Op-ED she wrote wasn’t about Johnny Depp but the entire case was about him. She didnt even mention anyone else
@hakancarlsson2881
@hakancarlsson2881 2 жыл бұрын
And she by the end of her testimony slipped up and said she wrote it about Depp...
@Emma-dh7by
@Emma-dh7by 2 жыл бұрын
If she mentioned someone else during the case, wouldn't she be sued by them too?
@mariee.5912
@mariee.5912 2 жыл бұрын
she said the only person that made it about JD was JD. She wanted to portrait him as a narcissist. I know he isn't perfect and I don't even personally know him, but he doesn't come up as narcissist.
@jasonibanez9855
@jasonibanez9855 2 жыл бұрын
You say she didn't mention anyone else, but she said sexual abuse was something she suffered prior to graduating high school. So I'm pretty sure that wasn't in reference to Depp.
@angelfaye101
@angelfaye101 2 жыл бұрын
@@jasonibanez9855 she said during her testimony that he sexually assaulted her with a broken liquor bottle.
@FunnCubes
@FunnCubes 2 жыл бұрын
"My dog stepped on a bee." Face be like: 😳😉😡😅😝😂😏😪😔
@bernlin2000
@bernlin2000 2 жыл бұрын
10:37 wow...that is an absolutely insane law. That effectively makes someone guilty regardless of a defective courtroom. Appeals are expensive even without such a bond. I wonder if the jury was made aware of this rule. I imagine it might have prejudiced them...which laws shouldn't do.
@MargaritaOnTheRox
@MargaritaOnTheRox 2 жыл бұрын
This is the first time I've heard about that rule. No one else has mentioned it, and I've read a few articles and watched a few videos about their intention to appeal. If the jury didn't know about the punitive cap, I doubt they knew about the appeals rule. Most damages aren't in the millions.
@TheSteve2305
@TheSteve2305 2 жыл бұрын
Law prejudiced the jury?? That's not how it works bro. The jury works in the confines of law, not the other way around. You may not like the law, but it's the law.
@LucianCanad
@LucianCanad 2 жыл бұрын
On the other hand, imagine someone files an appeal, proceeds to alienate all of their money and, upon being ruled against, shrugs and says "sorry, I don't have that money". The way it is structured, it disincentivizes appeals out of spite, which clog the judicial system and further cause financial burdens on a winning party.
@ericfleming5522
@ericfleming5522 2 жыл бұрын
The statute he cited isn't applicable to this case anyway. Section 16.1-107 governs appeals de novo from a judgment of a general district court to a circuit court, not appeals from a circuit court to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
@kelvindoang1228
@kelvindoang1228 2 жыл бұрын
@@TheSteve2305 actually it is still debated check out cgp grey “jury nullification” if the jury know the law it can change its perception of the result. If they know the cap of punitve dammage is 350k they can change it so they can give johnny depp 15 mils. You see? At the end of the day we are human not robot
@mmgprovideo
@mmgprovideo 2 жыл бұрын
You just might be the only creator reporting on this without any bias. Thanks for that!
@valerierodger7700
@valerierodger7700 2 жыл бұрын
To be fair, Legal Bytes went into it without any bias, did her damnedest to remain objective, but became so convinced by the evidence and incensed about Amber's lies that she couldn't remain unbiased in her coverage anymore
@heyitsmonique00
@heyitsmonique00 2 жыл бұрын
Also Emily D Baker is the one I watched for 4 consistent weeks during this who is a legal analyst that remained unbiased as well
@metadata4255
@metadata4255 2 жыл бұрын
@@valerierodger7700 Amber's lies? I watched the whole trial, there were no lies, I honestly don't know what the internet is talking about, Depp admitted to beating her, I look forward to her winning the appeal
@snipey8623
@snipey8623 2 жыл бұрын
@@metadata4255 Can you please grab the audio evidence of Depp admitting to beating her. I can easily grab a lot of audio evidence of Amber beating him so I would love to see your evidence if you do not mind.
@metadata4255
@metadata4255 2 жыл бұрын
@@snipey8623 he admitted on-tape to headbutting her. On that basis alone, she didn't defame him. "Mutual abuse" is a men's rights talking point.
@gmurph623
@gmurph623 2 жыл бұрын
Hey, in the past 2 videos there have been subtle issues with the audio. A kind of quiet "pop pop" sound that occurs from time to time. You can hear it pretty well at 1:03 right before "this is a civil trial". Edit: 4:30, ouch
@erikdunbar9423
@erikdunbar9423 2 жыл бұрын
I've seen lots of clip videos making fun of Amber Heard's attorney's performance. Pausing a lot, looking like she's trying to think of her strategy or her next question, reviewing notes, etc. When watching a movie or tv show everything glides along smoothly, which is to be expected in a scripted program. But my thinking is that this has given viewers the expectation that this is how a real trial in a real courtroom is meant to go, and any deviation means someone is incompetent or unprepared. So what I'm asking is, during an examination, are pauses, references to notes or regrouping when your rhythm is interrupted, are those par for the course for a real courtroom experience?
@shaniquamar6952
@shaniquamar6952 2 жыл бұрын
When the second call was answered the cops went but said they saw no marks on Amber and there wasn’t anything worth noting destroyed so technically anything tried to do to make things worse didn’t work so technically it was false, hence the win on the statement B.
@murderoustendencies
@murderoustendencies 2 жыл бұрын
they also took no notes, said they were there for like an hour when they were hardly there fifteen minutes, gave their statements weeks later and said that her face was red but that they attributed that to crying but didn't look closely at her. That's not what I'd call rock solid.
@campbellsoup93
@campbellsoup93 2 жыл бұрын
@@murderoustendencies Okay, but the first set of cops DID look at her closely and DID examine the whole apartment and guess what? They ALSO didn't see any marks on her or damage to the apartment.
@privatesmith1560
@privatesmith1560 2 жыл бұрын
@@murderoustendencies My father was a police officer, ai watched all police officers er statements in full, so let me enlighten you a bit. During the first call a female police sat with AH on a couch for 10 minutes whilst her Male partner did a "protective security sweep" through both penthouses (these are not small places so it must have taken a while). Neither of the officers of the first 911 call claimed to have been there one hour. In fact both stated due to the time between interview and incident they only had their incident report filled out in their patrol car electronically immediately after leaving the penthouse to provide start and end time. The point is, AH did not claim she had applied make-up at any time prior to the two 911 call visits and a female police officer saw her face close-up for several minutes. As it was a conversation between them with both sitting next to each other there is no way the Police woman would not have detected physical Mark's on her. Both officers also stated they followed protocol to specifically look for signs of bodily harm on the alleged victim, did so and saw none. To make such an visual assessment for facial injuries a professional under such circumstances does at best need a minute. The second police visit with different officers yielded the same result, several people met AH the next day and could not see anything wrong with her face no injuries are visible in a TV interview she gave 18 hours after the 911 incidents and she partied heavily with friends 24 hours later with party photos showing no facial irregularities or nose swelling either. If it looks like a duck runs like a duck and sounds like a duck it is a duck and not a swan...
@generallylevel-headed9671
@generallylevel-headed9671 2 жыл бұрын
This trial was a media bonanza. Honestly, I think the bigger conversation to be had is how much courts should permit media coverage on every little part of the trial. It doesn't seem to help the integrity of the court to have witnesses and the parties cheating out to camera for their highlight reels.
@alpha-cf2oi
@alpha-cf2oi 2 жыл бұрын
actrually in this case it HELPED A LOT to find the truth and to gain back credibility to the real victim. so I guess its all fine.
@spiderlily723
@spiderlily723 2 жыл бұрын
How else do you fix reputation that was publicly dragged trough the mud in media, though? How do you fix Depp's reputation and show exactly how malicious Heard was if you don't shoe every detail? I think cases that already massively involve public can't really be fixed in private.
@gabrielgrenier2427
@gabrielgrenier2427 2 жыл бұрын
I disagree. All of the headline after the verdict mentionned how anti-woman the verdict was. How amber heard was a victim and the jury was misogynistic or was coerced only by memes. Like... if we didnt have the cameras rolling to see all the lies she made, then we would believe those super gross headlines. It give the public a chance to see for themselves what are the facts, since news media can't be trusted with accurate non bias reporting.
@huskytail
@huskytail 2 жыл бұрын
I think it's much more important to discuss how society gets the information they need on a daily basis in order to vote, make life decisions and so on. We see how the media on both sides, how organisations and people politicise this case and if there were no cameras, not only the life of a man and his family would have stayed ruined, but an abuser and her supporters would have continued to stir the political pot for personal gains.
@alpha-cf2oi
@alpha-cf2oi 2 жыл бұрын
@@gabrielgrenier2427 exactly
@SpaceCowboy5
@SpaceCowboy5 2 жыл бұрын
Nice to see an impartial lawyer review this case
@jenat82
@jenat82 2 жыл бұрын
I honestly think Johnny Depp's lawyer ran his mouth on his own. There was no Heard hate scheme needed as it began on its own after the audio tapes became available to the public. I had looked up everything available, to eventuaaly get in Depp's favour.. but I had never seen the comments from his old lawyer before this trail. It seems they were not allowed to mention how the hate towards her correlated with the UK trail and what was made public there. I will agree she has it ROUGH now online cos of the hate but Depp didn't need to do anything. Her own voice on recordings did that along with her claims. "I didn't punch you, I hit you ....stop being a baaaaaaaby!!" "You think a jury would believe you? Tell the world Johnny that you are the victim of domestic violence!" A man that locks himself in bathrooms to get away from her.
@_ironhearted_5683
@_ironhearted_5683 2 жыл бұрын
Is there any way that the public nature of the trial could have made the jury already form an opinion about the case before it ended? Even if it might be ultimately right (or wrong) isn't that bad because it gives confirmation bias to the jury and harder to prove otherwise
@sarahroberts8724
@sarahroberts8724 2 жыл бұрын
If Johnny Can afford to give her 2 million, but she can't afford to give him 10 million, does he still have to give her 2? Or does law allow for the sensible thing, and she just cut her debt by 2 mil? Thank you.
@denimchicken104
@denimchicken104 2 жыл бұрын
If she can’t pay, she gets nothing.
@soonerproud
@soonerproud 2 жыл бұрын
Devin stated that the 2 million effectively nets Johnny Depp 8.35 million dollars, meaning his 2 million dollar debt is canceled out by what Amber Heard owes Johnny Depp.
@Hahahahaaahaahaa
@Hahahahaaahaahaa 2 жыл бұрын
So after all this there isn't just debt that appears. The judge will issue an order based on the findings of the jury and legal adjustment. The order will likely lay out both awards, with a final order for Amber to pay Depp the difference
@MotJ949
@MotJ949 2 жыл бұрын
Any money that changes hands is going to the lawyers. Neither of them are going to see money from either of them.
@88franko
@88franko 2 жыл бұрын
she will PLEDGE the money. problem solved. lol
@inventsable
@inventsable 2 жыл бұрын
"I've actually been subscribed to Morning Brew for forever" Objection, unquantifiable
@blackrosenuk
@blackrosenuk 2 жыл бұрын
I hope your sponsors pay you well because you have the BEST ads (not to mention flawless segues into those ads) .
@ujai5271
@ujai5271 2 жыл бұрын
I have been waiting for this since the verdict came out.
@Spartacusse
@Spartacusse 2 жыл бұрын
The media is trying to say "they both lost", when in fact Amber's statement was about the entire relationship and Johnny's was about a single day. There is absolutely no comparison here.
@giantWario
@giantWario 2 жыл бұрын
And it wasn't even his statement, it was his previous lawyer's statement.
@WhatAboutRC
@WhatAboutRC 2 жыл бұрын
Then you would think she would have the most evidence
@tampabong5055
@tampabong5055 2 жыл бұрын
Amber testified in trial that the article was about Mr Depp and the ACLU testified that the first drafts contained Mr Depp name.
@quentinj7236
@quentinj7236 2 жыл бұрын
Yes, it's obvious that the abuse about which she spoke publicly was abuse from Depp. The suit was not about her initial public claims of abuse, however. The suit was specifically about the article. The point of the article was that the public attacked Heard as a result of her having spoken out about her experience of being abused. If anyone could claim defamation based on the article it would seem it would be "the public," though it is hard to argue that the public did not attack Heard, especially now that we see the way the public has attacked her throughout the trial and now after. Imagine that everything or even most of what she has claimed Depp did to her is true. The way Heard is being treated would be a disgrace. It's difficult to understand why so many people somehow think they know that Ms. Heard is lying and are focusing all of their pent up anger and frustration toward her. Unless we've been present throughout the entirety of their interactions, how can we be certain? Why is anyone willing to give a man who has abused alcohol and drugs for years the benefit of the doubt? Because you think he's handsome? Because he played a role in a movie you liked?
@tampabong5055
@tampabong5055 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 Or maybe 🤔 people watch the trial and saw and heard Amber's contradictions and exaggerations and concluded she wasn't authentic. They heard Depp own his behavior and concluded he was more trustworthy. By the way the some (maybe most) Alcoholics and drug abusers are not outwardly violent.
@mitchhamilton64
@mitchhamilton64 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 with regards to her being attacked now, she brought it on herself. she thought it was perfectly fine that the public turn against johnny, that he lose movie roles over her allegations and that he was supposed to stay quiet and just take it. she said it herself "tell the world johnny" and he did and we see the result. contradictory evidence and testimonies from her, multiple pictures, video and audio recordings and not a single one has him raise a hand at her, not a single one as her say something along the lines of "why did you hit me?" there is only one person in that relationship who is caught on audio admitting to hitting the other and thats amber heard. she even admits that whenever things escalate between them he just walks away every time. do i need to go on?
@quentinj7236
@quentinj7236 2 жыл бұрын
@@mitchhamilton64 Not sure how you know that she thought public treatment of Depp was fine. Also, you're assuming she's completely lied about everything. Even then I doubt she deserves the treatment she has been receiving. At the very least she was in a mutually destructive relationship. Too many people are acting as if she was the entire problem.
@TheBrothergreen
@TheBrothergreen 2 жыл бұрын
@@quentinj7236 She was the entire problem. She took pictures to embarrass him, regularly harassed him until he felt the need to flee, physically assaulted him and lied about him physically assaulting her. There. Is. No. Evidence. That he did anything more than get baited into shouting matches and feel bad about it. Granted, that's not healthy, but neither is it SA with a whisky bottle or pounding her face in with big chunky rings. Those things were lies. Specifically. You're ignoring the fact that amber's lies were specific allegations with dates and times and manufactured evidence. So Yes. We can know. I'm not guessing, its not an assumption. She lied. It was defamatory. It was malicious.
@starmellie
@starmellie Жыл бұрын
Over a year later, we have now seen the mountain of evidence which includes a photocopy from a book claiming to be her injuries and very revealing and mostly damming against her psychologist notes. And she hasn’t fulfilled her pledges.
@PrimeroJinJusuke
@PrimeroJinJusuke 2 жыл бұрын
How about a video about how effective the jury system is and how it compares to legal systems in other countries.
@CaptLoquaLacon
@CaptLoquaLacon 2 жыл бұрын
I'd love to see that - there is even a trigger point for a video like this. The American Bar Association established a body to look up justice systems from around the world to see how things could be done better. Every year, they produce a ranked list of how people got on. For reference, the US ranked 41/139 in Civil Justice, and that part of the system was ranked 122nd out of 139 in terms of freedom from discrimination. It'll be interesting to see someone try to talk about the methodology of the rankings and then looking at why some comparisons go they way they do. A number of the top justice systems (Germany ranks very highly for example) have no juries, even in criminal trials if I recall correctly
@phabiorules
@phabiorules 2 жыл бұрын
@@CaptLoquaLacon In China, they have no juries either. I read an argument and the mentality is pretty much "The jury would just aide with whomever is of a higher social class."
@CaptLoquaLacon
@CaptLoquaLacon 2 жыл бұрын
@@phabiorules Thanks for that, although then you maybe introduce questions like how do countries without a jury system hold the justice system accountable? Especially in a state that, for the sake of diplomacy, I'll describe is highly regulated? To be fair though, I don't think the US system of electing judges does a good job with that either, especially when it comes to investigating their own parties... It's why I really would love to see a Legal Eagle video on it with other collaborators I think it would be a fascinating series
@danielkristiansen2298
@danielkristiansen2298 2 жыл бұрын
@@CaptLoquaLacon Norwegian here. It is all to do with politics. A first past the post, two party system sucks. It really sucks. Everyting will quickly become politicied in a "us vs them" mentality. The Norwegian parliament is made up of 169 seats currently filled with members from a total of 10 parties. The largest party is the Labour party with 48 seats. The government (Labour + Centre Party) holds 76 seats in total, while the opposition holds 93. In order for someone to be appointed as a judge to the supreme court, they must be accepted by 2/3 of parliament. A judge that is openly too close to a party will never be accepted. In addition, our supreme court is made up of 20 judges. So even if a partisan judge makes on there, they will have very limited power. Also, here in Europe (bar the UK) we base our legal systems on Roman Law, not Common Law. The role of legal precedent in those systems are very different. I am not an expert at all but I think that a lot of what the US Supreme Court does is actually done by parliament under Roman Law.
@Aarzu
@Aarzu 2 жыл бұрын
Throwing in my two cents with regards to the ruling, for me there were three major lynch pins in the case. 1) The audio of Amber Heard admitting to striking Johnny, saying "I didn't hit you that hard so stop making a big thing about it!" as well as saying that she did it because he did or didn't do X. 2) Another piece of audio where Amber outright tells Johnny that if he tries to claim she was abusive that no one would believe him. This and #1 are both VERY common and well-known tactics that abusers use to try and silence their victims. The fact that she's a woman doesn't mean she's not a domestic abuser. 3) In the phone call recordings and other audio of interactions we heard between the two of them, nothing about Depp's tone of voice seems to me like someone who's flying off the handle with uncontrollable rage. In fact, Amber sounds like the one with anger issues in pretty much all of the interactions that were presented. The bottom line is that, at the very least, things were not as Heard tried to make them seem. As the attorney said, if you believe Depp was responsible for even one instance of abuse, then you have to rule in Heard's favor. However, one instance out of several in this particular case is pretty underwhelming. It's not a huge leap to come to the conclusion of "Okay, well if her claims for A, B, C, or D don't really hold water, then why would E be any different?"
@robertsimms5861
@robertsimms5861 2 жыл бұрын
“Okay, if her claims for A, B, C or D don’t really hold water, then why should E be any different?” Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (“False in one thing, false in everything.”) Exactly. All women must be believed, regardless! My ass!!!! The evidential truth should be believed, always. Not assumptions.
@juliamalcolm1029
@juliamalcolm1029 2 жыл бұрын
If you missed the UK case of Depp vs The Sun... you might have missed that we are all legally entitled to refer to your favourite pirate as a wife beater because they proved that he beat his wife. Be sure to tune in for the Depp's trial for assault starting on July 25 for punching a crew member on set. Delve a little deeper than your tiktok feed and you might see that there's more to this piece of 💩 than his carefully crafted public image.
@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump
@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump 2 жыл бұрын
@DODO MCGuy Do you sincerely believe that?
@howardlam6181
@howardlam6181 2 жыл бұрын
The pieces that proved malice was her own recording of her breaching restraining order, TMZ alert, bruise free photo the next day, and the second recording you said. These are backed up by her testimony that she wrote the op-ed because he is a powerful man.
@Johnnysmithy24
@Johnnysmithy24 2 жыл бұрын
@DODO MCGuy Lmao listen to the entire 1 hour audio, it incriminates Amber even further. It’s almost the definitive proof that she’s an abuser, admitting several times to starting physical fights and going crazy and that Johnny is always running away from her. “Out of context” Sure keep dreaming
@zhouwu
@zhouwu 2 жыл бұрын
That really helped me to understand how the law is applied and what all those words mean for us everyday civilians and what our rights and duties are and are not, and basically restore to me a sense of security that I've lost due to feeling ignorant with regards to exactly where the law stands and if indeed the law does its job of enforcing justice or, if instead, the law has actually been abused to cause injustice, or to create opportunities for miscarriages of justice to take place.
@x--.
@x--. 2 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, the law, in general, protects the rich at the expense of the poor. If you don't have a lawyer to help you navigate the byzantine system you can be easily deprived of your rights and privileges under the law. Our society would be a much better place if right-to-counsel for major issues existed (housing, work, school, and maybe a few others). It is standard practice for rich individuals and companies to hire attorneys who take advantage of ignorant litigants, there is almost no risk to the attorney.
@tevarinvagabond1192
@tevarinvagabond1192 2 жыл бұрын
@@x--. Yeah but that's for situations of rich being put to court with middle and lower class people...the majority of court cases involve cases involving ONLY middle or low class people, so your comment really is shown to just have contempt for the law just because you hate rich people
@msliper
@msliper 2 жыл бұрын
That's a one long sentence
@garygrant91
@garygrant91 2 жыл бұрын
People keep conflating Law and Justice. We have a legal system that enforces Law, not Justice. Quite often Justice is served in our system but it is as a byproduct not intent.
@zhouwu
@zhouwu 2 жыл бұрын
@@garygrant91 What's the point of law if it fails to serve the best interests of justice? That's purpose defeating, no? Self perpetuating and self serving, with law being used interchangeably with norms instead of functioning to restore faith in the JUSTICE system
@Dani-qo8xo
@Dani-qo8xo 2 жыл бұрын
I watched the entire legal eagle Nebula ad before I watched this video. Worth it.
@eporcheetahka5086
@eporcheetahka5086 2 жыл бұрын
What I don't understand is if JD fell short on ANY of claims he would have lost his entire case but AH lost on a few of her claims and was still awarded compensation can someone please explain why?
@aurelo54
@aurelo54 2 жыл бұрын
It's not exactly that (if I understand correctly), it's about the fact that all alledged defamatory statements made by Heard are related to Depp being physically abusive. So if Heard team can prove any type of violence by Depp in their relationship, none of the statements can be legitimately describe as defamatory. But any of the 6 defamatory points can be defamatory in itself for various specific reasons.
@huskytail
@huskytail 2 жыл бұрын
Because Johnny needed to prove she was not once abused, that she wrote the article about him. In addition, the malice required in the public figures made it difficult. She wrote a very broad and quite impersonal article, with just enough information to make sure people know it's about him. His lawyer said something very very specific about roughing up the place between the police visits.
@XdivineExp
@XdivineExp 2 жыл бұрын
That's not exactly correct AFAIK. It's not if Depp fell short of any specific thing that he would lose his entire case, but if the Jury believed that he abused Amber even once then he would lose all 3. One of the strongest defences against defamation is the truth. If something is true, it cannot be defamatory. Since all 3 statements of defamation regarding Amber are about Depp abusing her, all she would need to do is prove that he abused her even one time and she would win. With the defamatory statements from Depp's side though, they're much more varied so it was more likely to get a varying number of them to stick.
@theanimerapper6351
@theanimerapper6351 2 жыл бұрын
She was awarded because the police testimony. Waldman said they roughed up the apartment and spilled wine but there was no spilled wine nor was the place roughed up thus making this one statement false.
@hiurro
@hiurro 2 жыл бұрын
The claim that his team made (that she had fabricated evidence of domestic abuse then called the police a second time) was false so she received compensation but the fact that the jury found that to be a lie was not proof that she did not lie about the things Depp claimed she had. Her not fabricating evidence of abuse didn't prove that abuse happened (as she claimed) because no evidence was found in that instance.
@secuda
@secuda 2 жыл бұрын
All i know is this trial has shown me that alot of people are absolutely fine with using sexist and derogatory language as long as its aimed at someone they deem to be bad. Broad Brushes, Broad Strokes.
@alenasenie6928
@alenasenie6928 2 жыл бұрын
Even if this was a civil case, the claim basically boils down to if JD is innocent of DV and SA, plus a few other extras, that par was an innocent verdict, way stronger than not guilty. The counterclaim that was accepted was extremely specific, so that is the part found to be fake and defamatory
@xathridtech727
@xathridtech727 2 жыл бұрын
Simple reason why both earn damages "2 wrongs don't make a right"
@exhaustguy
@exhaustguy 2 жыл бұрын
So in voir dire, do they ask the jurors if they know the law on capping punitive damages? Is it grounds for a mistrial if one of the jurors brings it up during deliberations?
@zackestin1368
@zackestin1368 2 жыл бұрын
No, the idea is to try and make people less likely to be judged for more than the state thinks corporations should, but knowing a law is never a mistrial, at best somebody watching over the jury will ask them to ignore that.
@Hahahahaaahaahaa
@Hahahahaaahaahaa 2 жыл бұрын
Voir Dire happens prior to final jury selection. It's possible a juror might be excluded, of they said they would increase actual damages beyond what they believed to compensate for punitive limits, for example. But typically US law dictates that unless there is an error of law by the judge, or something harmfully prejudicial said by an attorney in eg closing arguments, the findings of the jury should not be disturbed.
@mack1305
@mack1305 2 жыл бұрын
No. They are not told so they can decide on each one separately. If they knew they could then shift punitive awards to the compensatory side. Not knowing keeps compensatory and punitive separate.
@Dark_Peace
@Dark_Peace 2 жыл бұрын
What is voir dire ? I'm french speaker and I find it funny when I see french expressions that I don't know in english.
@theanimerapper6351
@theanimerapper6351 2 жыл бұрын
It's really just there to show how bad the jury thought amber was. The fact that he got 5 million and she got 0 in punitive shows that they didn't believe a single word she said and they thought Johnny was 100% innocent
@nildam.bonilla5849
@nildam.bonilla5849 2 жыл бұрын
The second set of cops didn't found anything wrong in the penthouse, not wine spilled or anything so maybe the jury may have said that it was a lie as she didn't conspire to lie to cops as that statement says and that alleging her doing that was malicious, even if AH and friends may have possibly done some staging before Isaac came to the space and saw the mess the next morning as I believe he said, if I remember his testimony correctly
@Djorgal
@Djorgal 2 жыл бұрын
Yep. They spilled the wine and roughed up the place after the second set of cops came and left.
@DavionAngeles
@DavionAngeles 2 жыл бұрын
There was a juror who spoke about the case. He had mentioned that most of the jurors wanted to give Johnny the complete win and the $50mil, so compromises had to be made, because the verdict had to be unanimous.
@nildam.bonilla5849
@nildam.bonilla5849 2 жыл бұрын
@@DavionAngeles that is not a verified juror anyone could have done a video posing as one
@DavionAngeles
@DavionAngeles 2 жыл бұрын
@@nildam.bonilla5849 I am not saying it was a verified juror, sure it could be anyone, it could also be a real juror. You are speculating on what the jury may have considered and you are definitely not a juror. This is speculation for all. So even if he is not a real juror, how is his speculation more or less valid than your won?
@twitchascension
@twitchascension 2 жыл бұрын
@@DavionAngeles so far the ones people have been talking about seem to have been disproven. The one on tiktok, for example, who showed a juror card was found to have shown a California juror card, and apparently has now taken down the account.
@dr.albtraum7173
@dr.albtraum7173 2 жыл бұрын
This maybe a little out of your wheel house but I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Act Man/QuantamTV drama that's unfolding. Seems like there is definite legal stuff that is going on with KZbin and terms of service violations. The whole thing is sketchy and hearing your professional opinion would be awesome
@FrankOsman
@FrankOsman 2 жыл бұрын
Was just getting on here to say this. It has ramifications for all KZbinrs.
@ghysling
@ghysling 2 жыл бұрын
I would like to hear a new episode of ALAB series on basically anything :(
@ryanbarthel5352
@ryanbarthel5352 2 жыл бұрын
I love that you brought that up, I want to hear what he'd have to say too
@RichardLoganBaker
@RichardLoganBaker 2 жыл бұрын
Just came here to say I am really surprised that lamp didn't fall off the table! Every time his elbows shook the desk it set off my anxiety thinking the lamp was gonna shimmy off the desk 😅
What's the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard Case About?
21:27
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 2,2 МЛН
Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni (It Ends With Us)
23:02
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 774 М.
Леон киллер и Оля Полякова 😹
00:42
Канал Смеха
Рет қаралды 4,7 МЛН
BAYGUYSTAN | 1 СЕРИЯ | bayGUYS
36:55
bayGUYS
Рет қаралды 1,9 МЛН
My scorpion was taken away from me 😢
00:55
TyphoonFast 5
Рет қаралды 2,7 МЛН
How Disney Outsmarted Ron DeSantis
23:13
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 2,2 МЛН
Lawsuits That Actually Weren't Ridiculous
16:34
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 4,7 МЛН
Medical Malpractice On Law & Order Ft. Legal Eagle
17:33
Doctor Mike
Рет қаралды 1,7 МЛН
Why Elizabeth Holmes Was Convicted (and Also Acquitted)
18:32
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Cardi B Wins Millions from YouTuber Tasha K
22:32
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,1 МЛН
Johnny Depp Won Against Amber Heard
8:49
penguinz0
Рет қаралды 4,5 МЛН
SSSniperwolf Illegally Doxxed Jacksfilms?
20:28
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 1,8 МЛН
Doctor and Lawyer React To Grey’s Anatomy Malpractice Episode
19:54
Doctor Mike
Рет қаралды 12 МЛН
THE GREATEST BRIEF EVER FILED
20:22
LegalEagle
Рет қаралды 3,8 МЛН
Леон киллер и Оля Полякова 😹
00:42
Канал Смеха
Рет қаралды 4,7 МЛН