Last Updated on 07/14/2022 by てんしょく飯
A judge has denied Amber Heard’s request for a mistrial after she lost a defamation lawsuit against her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.
Judge Denies Amber Heard’s Request for Mistrial
A judge has denied Amber Heard’s motion to set aside the verdict and remand the case for a new trial after she lost her defamation lawsuit against Johnny Depp. The judge found that there was “no evidence of wrongdoing or unfairness” on the part of the jury.
As many of you know, in the trial in which Johnny sued his ex-wife Amber for defamation, the jury found that an editorial Amber contributed to the Washington Post in 2018 was defamatory and ordered Amber to pay Johnny a total of $15 million in damages. Amber also won $2 million in damages in her counterclaim against Johnny.
Amber’s lawyers then argued that the $10 million in damages awarded to Amber by the jury was “inconsistent and irreconcilable” with the jury’s conclusion that both she and Johnny had defamed each other, and that, with respect to one of the jurors, the court record stated that he was born in 1945 The court also argued that one of the jurors may have been replaced by someone other than the person who received the subpoena, since the court record stated that he was “born in 1945” but the publicly available information stated that he was “born in 1970.
Regarding this decision, Judge Penny Azcarate of the Fairfax County Court in Virginia, in court documents released by the U.S. Law & Crime Network, stated that the juror in question had never lied on the forms, that he had been “fully vetted” like the other jurors, and that Amber, Johnny, and the lawyers for both He stated that the lawyers for both Amber and Johnny “spent a full day questioning the jury panel and telling the court that they were acceptable to the jury panel.
As for Amber’s lawyers objecting now, after the verdict, at this time, the judge also argued that Amber knew or should have known about the issue and that she had plenty of opportunity to object during the seven-week trial. The judge stated, “A party cannot wait until after an adverse verdict to object to an issue that has been known since the beginning of the trial. This issue has already been waived,” the document said.
The judge added, “Defendant has not clarified how exactly he was prejudiced by the inclusion of Juror #15 on the jury panel. That juror was selected by rigorous examination, sat on the jury, deliberated, and reached a verdict. The only evidence before this Court is that this jury and all jurors followed their oaths, the instructions and orders of the Court,” it added.
コメント