Johnny Depp and his legal team have responded to Amber Heard’s new court filings. Heard’s legal team requested that the verdict in their defamation lawsuit be thrown out on the grounds that the jury lineup was changed at the last minute. Depp’s team called this request “baseless” and asked the court to dismiss it.
Heard’s team made it clear from the time of the verdict that they planned to make an appeal, and that came on Friday, July 8. They claimed that one of the jurors had not been summoned for jury duty before the trial, and therefore shouldn’t have been chosen to help decide on the case. Depp’s team responded in a memo obtained by Deadline, which argues that Heard’s team should have raised this complaint much earlier in the proceedings if it was a genuine issue.
Videos by PopCulture.com
“Following a six-week jury trial, a jury of Ms. Heard’s peers rendered a verdict against her in virtually all respects,” it reads. “Though understandably displeased with the outcome of trial, Ms. Heard has identified no legitimate basis to set aside in any respect the jury’s decision. Virginia law is clear that a verdict is not to be set aside unless it is ‘plainly wrong or without evidence to support it.’ Here, the verdict was well supported by the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the law, and should not be set aside. Mr. Depp respectfully submits that the Court should deny Ms. Heard’s Post-Trial Motions, which verge into the frivolous.”
Depp’s team also argues that Heard’s team failed to submit this appeal before the deadline on July 1, though the attorneys did file some paperwork on June 24. As for the mysterious misidentified juror, Depp’s team argues that Heard had months to raise a complaint about that before, during and after the trial. They believe this makes her complaint disingenuous, and more about the trial result than the process itself.
Juror number 15 was reportedly not the person who was summoned for jury duty in this case. According to Deadline, the summons was sent to an address where there are two people with “the same last name,” one 77 years old and one 52 years old. The 77-year-old was summoned for jury duty, but the 52-year-old showed up. They were selected for the jury.
Heard’s team claims that they did not know about this mixup and that it is a violation of Virginia legal code. Their memo reads: “As the Court no doubt agrees, it is deeply troubling for an individual not summoned for jury duty nonetheless to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case such as this. This was a high-profile case, where the fact and date of the jury trial were highly publicized prior to and after the issuance of the juror summonses.”
It is not yet clear how the court will respond to Heard’s appeal. In the meantime, the former couple will not be paying damages to each other until the legal process runs its course.ย
