Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp

[Evie]

Appeals are very different from trials in that way.

The focus will generally be on legal and factual analysis of the evidence presented rather than on presenting new evidence; it is a much smaller media circus as a result.

Especially if the appeal court happens to have saner rules about streaming (as most courts do)

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, the case is often re-decided by people who were
not there originally to hear the witnesses' testimony.

 

[EvaDK]

Apparently Herd is going to appeal the verdict. I guess she has to due to the huge sums involved.. but I can't imagine she wants more attention brought.

She might want to hire a new legal counsel, because her lawyer was pretty bad and made mistakes with some of the witness testimonies.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

They were an utter shamble, surprisingly so.

 

[Evie]

Yes, the case is often re-decided by people who were
not there originally to hear the witnesses' testimony.

The witnesses' testimony is seldom *relevant* to appeal.

Trial cases rarely get overturned on questions of facts (eg, what witnesses testify about). For precisely the reason you describe - the appeal judges haven't seen the witnesses - courts tend to be reluctant to overturn a finding of fact at the trial level, and the threshold to do so is very high (things like "the judge's decision on facts has to be entirely unreasonable".

Trial cases get overturned in the overwhelming majority of cases on questions of law - that is, questions that are about interpreting and applying the law, about the rights of the involved parties and so forth. The witnesses and evidence are pointedly irrelevant to deciding what the law actually says and means, so there is no reason whatsoever to assume those who heard the witnesses' testimony are more qualified. Trial judges have no particular qualification over appeal judges for interpreting the law, and juries have particular *dis*qualifications on the question - legal illiteracy is almost a requirement of jury duty).

So casting doubts on appeal courts on the basis that they don't see the witnesses is a bit of an empty talking point.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes in some cases that is so, but there are cases where appeal judges' deliberations involve rerunning the trial in
their own minds that may involve re-weighing the evidence, and second hand access to that evidence may not help.

To my mind the main benefit of appeals is where there is new evidence or the original trial was procedurally unjust.

 

[Evie]

In the overwhelming majority of cases it's so. Cases where the trial judge is overruled on finding of facts are rare in most countries. In most cases, the overruling on finding of facts is entirely justified because the trial judge can only have come to his conclusions by going out to lunch.

New evidence is (again, this may vary dependent on jurisdiction) rarely allowed on appeal, precisely because ruling on evidence is not the job of an appeal court.

 

[EnglishEdward]

In this particular case, it was a jury, not a judge, who delivered the verdict.

I am not against an appeal.

I found the jury's decisions vague.

More generally, I think Johnny Depp was unwise to initiate action on a compliant of domestic abuse that did not specifically mention him.
The thing is she had had plenty of relationships before her 18 month marriage so the original statement did not conclusively identify him.

And I think Amber Heard was unwise to throw additional allegations in to try to substantiate her original complaint.

As it is, they are both messing up their carreers, and transferring their wealth to lawyers.

 

[Samson]

New documents from the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial have been unsealed – and things have only got uglier

More than 6,000 pages of court documents were recently unsealed, providing a lot of unpleasant new information about Depp. Funnily enough, Depp fans were the ones responsible for thrusting this information into the public eye – they crowdfunded the fees required to get hold of the unsealed documents, which contain allegations that lawyers for Depp and Heard managed to keep out of the trial itself. The idea was to dig up dirt on Heard, but their efforts seem to have backfired: the documents are packed with nasty nuggets of information about Depp and illuminate the extent to which his legal team weaponised misogyny throughout the trial.​

​

One of the nastiest bits of information in the documents might be the claim that Depp’s legal team tried to submit “nude pictures” of Heard into evidence and attempted to bring up her “brief stint as an exotic dancer”. It’s not clear what nude pictures they were referring to, and these were ultimately not relied on in the trial. But, in 2014, Heard’s iCloud account was hacked and hundreds of naked photos of her were released online, causing her understandable distress. If Depp did try to have these photos trotted out in a televised trial, it looks a lot like revenge porn – pure nastiness designed to humiliate Heard. It’s also a horrible reminder that if a woman doesn’t lead a perfectly chaste life, the world will find a way to cast her as a “slut” who is responsible for anything that happens to her.​

​

It has been reported that in the unsealed documents were: text messages from Depp’s then assistant about the time the actor allegedly “kicked” Heard on a flight; Depp’s legal team’s cynical attempt to implicate Heard in the death of a friend who died in a car accident; the fact that Heard willingly walked away from “tens of millions of dollars” she was entitled to in her divorce proceedings with Depp; a statement from Depp saying Heard had never caused him physical or mental injury; disturbing text messages between Depp and the musician Marilyn Manson, who has been accused of abuse by more than a dozen women, all of which he denies; claims that photos and audio tapes submitted by Depp had been digitally manipulated and edited.​

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes well; if one turns over a stone, one is more likely to find dirt and insects than gold underneath.

 

[NovaKart]

This was going around Arabic social media a few days ago that Johnny Deppn was at a Shia ceremony in Karbala during Ashura but this website explains it’s not really him. The guy is Iranian and just happens to look a lot like Johnny Depp.

 

[Kyriakos]

While I haven't followed the case, there are very many videos that support Depp, and probably Heard's lawyers weren't as good as his so she lost. What I certainly don't like is the crusade against her online.
Some of it goes with being a celebrity, of course. But it'd be better if nastiness could be lessened.
Then again, like I said I am not very aware of the particulars of the case, so she might be problematic too - I doubt Depp is the saint they make him to be, however.

 

[amadeus]

I only just looked at Depp now and it seems like he’s gone from post-apocalyptic Boy George on crack to if Elton John joined the Addams family.

 

[Zardnaar]

While I haven't followed the case, there are very many videos that support Depp, and probably Heard's lawyers weren't as good as his so she lost. What I certainly don't like is the crusade against her online.
Some of it goes with being a celebrity, of course. But it'd be better if nastiness could be lessened.
Then again, like I said I am not very aware of the particulars of the case, so she might be problematic too - I doubt Depp is the saint they make him to be, however.

They both screwed up from the sounds of it but yeah no reason to go after her.

She was terrible at giving testimony even if she was telling the truth. It was like she was acting and Johnny was a lot more chilled out.

He's probably worse than her it's Hollywood it's full of drug fooked devoants.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What I certainly don't like is the crusade against her online.

false accusers tend not to be popular, for multiple good reasons. this is probably the only thing that separates public opinion of heard vs depp in his favor, but it's a big thing.

online hatred of her is pretty reasonable, as long as it says in the "dislike" partition and does not turn into harassment or worse.

interesting that depp, despite all the bad looks of his own that came up from this, probably netted positive in public opinion relative to case in uk and when he was accused.

 

[sherbz]

false accusers tend not to be popular, for multiple good reasons. this is probably the only thing that separates public opinion of heard vs depp in his favor, but it's a big thing.

online hatred of her is pretty reasonable, as long as it says in the "dislike" partition and does not turn into harassment or worse.

interesting that depp, despite all the bad looks of his own that came up from this, probably netted positive in public opinion relative to case in uk and when he was accused.

IIRC the main reason Depp lost in the UK case is that the trial was heard by a judge. Not a jury. So much of the emotive BS that you got in the US trial was largely ignored. The US trial was more of a popularity contest. I'm not sure that was in the interests of justice. But I'm not that bothered. Heard is no victim (and neither is Depp). They are both self centred and selfish egotists with far too much money.

 

[Gorbles]

They are both self centred and selfish egotists with far too much money.

These notes don't preclude anyone from being a victim. They don't have your sympathy, your support, or anything like that. But you seem to be taking your lack of care and turning it into a legal decision. The question of offender and victim is one for the courts, which I believe is now somewhere in the appeals stage (for either or both, I can't remember).

Samson's link further up is pretty damning, though.

 

[sherbz]

These notes don't preclude anyone from being a victim. They don't have your sympathy, your support, or anything like that. But you seem to be taking your lack of care and turning it into a legal decision. The question of offender and victim is one for the courts, which I believe is now somewhere in the appeals stage (for either or both, I can't remember).

Samson's link further up is pretty damning, though.

They don't. But there are thousands of victims who never get their day in court because it's too expensive or their opponent too powerful. They are the real victims. Not Heard and not Depp. They are just celebrities with bruised egos and too much money.

 

[Gorbles]

They don't. But there are thousands of victims who never get their day in court because it's too expensive or their opponent too powerful. They are the real victims. Not Heard and not Depp. They are just celebrities with bruised egos and too much money.

Victims are victims. If Heard is the victim of Depp's actions, or vice versa, they are victims. Sure, they have privilege other people don't have by dint of their money and status, but they're still victims. Saying "someone can't be a victim even though they were traumatised and attacked" just because they were rich is kinda missing the forest for the trees. This thread is about the case - if you want to talk about general justice reforms, I feel like that's a whole other topic.

 

[sherbz]

Victims are victims. If Heard is the victim of Depp's actions, or vice versa, they are victims. Sure, they have privilege other people don't have by dint of their money and status, but they're still victims. Saying "someone can't be a victim even though they were traumatised and attacked" just because they were rich is kinda missing the forest for the trees. This thread is about the case - if you want to talk about general justice reforms, I feel like that's a whole other topic.

Victims are not equal. Seems odd for someone on the left of the spectrum to defend a universal ideal of victimhood. I always thought the left sought to elevate the persecuted and marginalised. Not carve out a level playing field for the benefit of the rich and powerful.