WHO WILL WIN THE TRIAL OF JOHNNY DEPP AND AMBER HEARD?
Different legal experts assure that "no party is going to win" in a trial that Johnny Depp has prepared to win over Amber Heard before the public.
The trial for defamation between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard continues to cause a whole maelstrom of reactions in networks, a large part of them promoted by fiery acolytes of each of the stars, regardless of what reality seems to be showing in both cases. .
The possibility of following the case live has made the atmosphere even more tense, especially during Heard's testimony on May 4, which came to gather 587,285 viewers live on YouTube thanks to the Law & Crime Network channel, but will the trial really work? to settle what happened between the interpreters?
In an interview published in Variety, entertainment lawyer Mitra Ahouraian believes that "this lawsuit was brought so that Johnny could win in the face of public opinion. He is using the courts as a platform to have his side heard. Neither side is going to win".
Depp, the plaintiff, accuses Heard of defamation for an opinion piece published in The Washington Post in 2018 in which, although the actor's name was never mentioned, it did emphasize that she was a "public figure representing domestic abuse." . Taking into account the turbulent relationship that she had with Depp since 2009, which ended in the request for a restraining order in 2016, it did not take long for the name of the "abuser" to be publicly known.
"I want a verdict against both of them," says attorney Jon Katz. "It seems like a pretty basic defamation lawsuit," says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh. "It's about the facts. I haven't seen anything that could really affect the law."
"Broad application of the doctrine of defamation by implication may chill press freedom, as it would require publishers to consider all possible defamatory implications that might flow from otherwise accurate statements," attorney Jennifer Nelson wrote of the risks involved in the large exposure of celebrity plaintiffs.
Jack Browning, a lawyer for a firm that represents, among others, the 'New York Post', doesn't seem so concerned: "Will this case be broadly applicable to media clients? It's not obvious that it is."
"My goal is the truth because it killed me that all those people I had met over the years thought I was a fraud," said the interpreter who, according to his agent, had a verbal agreement with Disney that amounted to 22.5 million dollars for shooting the sixth installment of 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.
