Johnny Depp Won

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

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

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

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

The judge said state law caps punitive damages at $350000, meaning Depp's award would total $10.35 million.

The article itself focuses mostly on policy questions of domestic violence, but Depp's lawyer point to two passages in the article, as well as an online headline that they say defamed Depp. In his statement, Depp said, "The goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. She said the verdict sets back women and the treatment of domestic violence victims. Closing arguments were delivered Friday. By the time the court broke for lunch, jurors had head from attorneys for both Depp and Heard — who then had a combined 45 minutes to present rebuttal closings later Friday afternoon. In a statement posted on Twitter and Instagram Heard said, "The disappointment I feel today is beyond words." His lawyers say he was defamed by the article even though it never mentioned his name.

He's $8 million richer. He's cleared his name. He's humiliated his ex-wife. But is the star really any better off than before he went to court?

But to win his case this time, Depp had to drag himself, Heard, his family and much of the rest of the world through jumbo-size troughs of mud. It was, in a lot of ways, the very definition of a pyrrhic victory. Being a Johnny Depp super-fan is one thing but, honestly, threatening to microwave his estranged ex-wife’s baby is a whole other kettle of psychosis. His prospects in Hollywood, especially the big-budget studio fare that has kept him on the A list for decades, now seem extremely iffy. “I am, and have been, overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and the colossal support and kindness from around the world,” he posted on Instagram from London (where he’d taken a break after the trial to play a gig with geezer rock god Jeff Beck) shortly after the jury in Fairfax County read its verdict. To be fair, the jury’s verdict was a mixed message.

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

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