+

Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.

Close
HomeQuizzoneWhatsappShare Flash Reads
 

Why Johnny Depp was found liable for defamation for something he never said

Jun 2, 2022, 04:24 IST
Insider
Actor Johnny Depp listens during his defamation trial against ex-wife, actor Amber Heard, in the courtroom at the Fairfax County Circuit Courthouse in Fairfax, U.S., May 24, 2022.Jim Watson/Pool via REUTERS
  • Jurors found Johnny Depp liable for defamation for a statement calling Amber Heard's abuse allegations a "hoax."
  • But Depp never made the statement — his lawyer Adam Waldman did.
Advertisement

In a verdict delivered Wednesday, a Virginia jury handed Johnny Depp a sweeping victory and Heard a minor one.

Heard successfully persuaded the jury to find Depp liable for one claim of defamation — but it was over something the actor's lawyer said, rather than Depp himself.

Adam Waldman, who represented the "Pirates of the Caribbean" actor amid Heard's abuse allegations in 2016, called her claims a "hoax" orchestrated with the help of her friends.

Depp's attorneys tried to get Heard's countersuit against him tossed several times on those grounds, arguing that Depp shouldn't be the one defending Waldman's statements.

Nonetheless, Judge Penney Azcarate, who oversaw the case in Fairfax County, Virginia, said "a reasonable jury" might agree with Heard's lawyers' argument that Waldman acted as an "agent" for Depp when he made those claims, and that Depp could be found liable for them.

Advertisement

Jurors were tasked with evaluating three of Waldman's statements, which were included in articles published by The Daily Mail in April 2020. Part of the jury instructions included weighing whether Waldman was "acting as an agent for Mr. Depp" when he made the statements.

The jury ultimately cleared Depp of the first and third statements in the jury form, but found him liable for the second one, where Waldman claimed Heard and her friends fabricated her account of a fight:

"Quite simply this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops but the first attempt didn't do the trick," Waldman told The Daily Mail, as quoted in the jury form. "The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property. So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine and roughed the place up, got their stories straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, and then placed a second call to 911."

The jurors decided on $2 million in compensatory damages for Depp to give Heard. But they also chose to award Heard $0 in punitive damages, indicating they didn't believe Depp should be punished for Waldman's statements.

In contrast, jurors found Heard liable for defamation for three separate statements made against Depp. That included the headline of the December 2018 Washington Post op-ed at the center of the lawsuit, "I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change."

Advertisement

Jurors weighed verdicts in both Depp's and Heard's lawsuits at the same time. Depp brought his lawsuit against Heard soon after the publication of the op-ed, and jurors ultimately decided Heard defamed him through the headline and two other passages published in it. The jurors awarded Depp $10 million in compensatory damages and another $5 million in punitive damages, though Azcarate lowered the latter figure to $350,000 in accordance with Virginia law. Heard's allegations about Waldman's statements were brought in a counterclaim.

Waldman testified in a deposition for the six-week trial, but said little. Heard's attorney Elaine Bredehoft grilled him about the statements and other issues, but Depp's lawyer Benjamin Chew repeatedly interjected and instructed him not to answer her questions because it "would require disclosure of communications between Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman," which are protected under attorney-client privilege.

Waldman represented Depp in a previous libel case brought against The Sun, a British tabloid. Depp lost that lawsuit, with a UK judge finding Heard's allegations "substantially true."

He was also previously one of Depp's lawyers in the Virginia case. Bruce White, the judge who presided over the court proceedings before Azcarate took over the case, kicked Waldman off it in October 2020, finding he had disseminated information to the press that had been covered by a protective order.

You are subscribed to notifications!
Looks like you've blocked notifications!
Next Article