Lawyer: Johnny Depp only won the court of public opinion

From the office window, Jon Katz has a direct view of the Fairfax courthouse in Virginia, USA. For weeks, he has watched fans gather outside cheering on Johnny Depp.

The trial of the case between star Pirates of the Caribbean and ex-wife is the biggest case Katz has seen in more than 20 years in the profession.

According to VarietyKatz has defended for many clients, acting as a spokesman for many parties (including the Westboro Baptist church) so he has experience in predicting the outcome of the trial.

According to the attorney, Depp and Heard, no one will win in this story. “On the contrary, I want a verdict against the two of them”he emphasized.

The concept of “defamation by implication”

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are suing each other for defamation. The actor accused the actress of slandering acts of domestic violence, causing his career to falter. Heard countered that her allegation was completely true.

Usually celebrity trials take place in closed courtrooms. The public can only hear information through management, representatives or the press. Insiders themselves choose to be silent or speak up after everything is over.

However, the case of two stars The Rum Diary is the exception. The hearings were livestreamed, satisfying the audience’s curiosity.

The lengthy trials have stirred up the digital media. At one point in Heard’s May 4 testimony, there were 587,285 people watching the livestream via the Law & Crime page. The coverage of Depp and Heard’s action and expression videos went viral on TikTok, Instagram and Twitter.

For First Amendment scholars, however, what’s going on is not exciting. Some experts say the lawsuit is unlikely to set any precedent or become a landmark in the history of defamation law.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said: “Johnny suing Amber seems like a pretty simple libel statement. I haven’t seen any details or anything that really affects the law.”

Johnny Depp and Amber Heard face off in court in Fairfax, USA. Photo: Reuters/AFP.

Back in 2018, Amber Heard wrote that she was a victim of domestic violence and sexual violence in an editorial posted on Washington Post. The actress did not mention Johnny Depp by name, but she linked her experience to the #MeToo movement.

On this, Depp argues in the light of being defamed by Heard by implication – neutral, unnamed statements that can still generate defamatory insinuations.

The concept of defamation once appeared in the trial between James Fenimore Cooper – a writer known for his articles on American social, political, economic, and cultural issues – and a series of editors of a newspaper. newspaper in the 1840s.

Horace Greeley, one of the defendants, said: “James will not bring the lawsuit to New York nor Otsego, because he is well known there”, to imply that Cooper had a bad reputation throughout the country. This statement caused Greeley to be considered defamatory by a New York court by implication.

“The court is a tool for Johnny Depp to express his voice”

In 2019, the Virginia Press Association (VPA) filed a summary of the Depp and Heard case, asking the court not to expand the concept of “defamation by implication”.

Jennifer Nelson, senior attorney at VPA, speaks on Variety: “The widespread use of ‘defamation by implication’ content can cause apathy in journalism.”

Nelson believes that journalists don’t risk making subjective inferences from someone’s implications when reporting about them. The lawyer emphasized in such insufficiently grounded articles, the plaintiffs – here are the stars – are likely to be counter-sued for slander.

However, Bruce White – the judge of the Fairfax district court – denied the VPA’s request and allowed Johnny Depp to continue his appeal on the grounds that: “This is Virginia’s age-old precedent.”

The court battle of the Hollywood star couple is considered by the media as a “circus”, “a TV series”. Photo: Glamor UK.

Whatever the jury decides, the case doesn’t bother Jack Browning, attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, who represents media clients including New York Post and Last Week Tonight With John Oliver – worried.

He only viewed the war between Depp and Heard as a “sui generis” case (insiders’ own will) without drawing much larger lessons for the public.

“Will the case of Johnny and Amber have widespread implications for future clients? Not sure what’s going on!”said Jack Browning.

The trial of the past few days has touched on the #MeToo movement, celebrity violence and decadence with developments that are “as gripping as a TV series”, “more thrilling than a wrestling match” – according to the report. CBS News describe. And finally, the audience is just waiting to see who will play the villain.

Entertainment attorney Mitra Ahuraian watched every minute of the proceedings, saying: “The lawsuit just helped Johnny Depp win the court of public opinion. He is using the court as a tool to convey his voice, to help himself be heard.”

“How about the result?”, reporter Variety question, and she immediately replied: “Neither side wins”.

According to Zing