Johnny Depp fired back at his wife Amber Heard’s ‘desperate’ attempt for a retrial, saying it should not be allowed.
Depp’s legal team have asked Virginia judge to leave his $10million defamation judgment intact after attorneys for his ex-wife called the jury’s verdict ‘nonsensical and unfounded’.
Heard’s lawyers had asked the judge to set aside the verdict on multiple grounds, including an apparent case of mistaken identity with one of the jurors.
One of the claims is based on the fact that a 77-year-old man was summoned for jury duty – but a 52-year-old man, who shares the same last name and address, was improperly seated for the six-week trial.
According to Depp’s lawyers, Heard team’s complaints about the juror’s identity are irrelevant and would have caused no prejudice to the actress.
The Pirates of the Caribbean actor’s attorneys said: ‘Ms. Heard’s desperate, after-the-fact demand for an investigation of Juror 15 based on a purported error in his birth date is…misplaced… Moreover, Ms. Heard’s argument is based on pure speculation.’
Last month, a civil jury in Fairfax awarded $10.35million to Depp after they found he was defamed by Heard when she wrote a 2018 op-ed piece in The Washington Post about domestic violence.
The jury also awarded $2million to Heard on her counterclaim that she was defamed by one of Depp’s attorneys after he called her allegations a hoax.
Heard’s lawyers filed motions earlier this month asking the judge to toss out the verdicts on a variety of legal theories.
Depp’s legal team responded, writing: ‘Following a six-week jury trial, a jury of Ms. Heard’s peers rendered a verdict against her in virtually all respects. 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.” Va. Code § 8.01-680.
‘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.’
The lawyers at Brown Rudnick LLP concluded by again calling Heard’s argument ‘frivolous’.
‘For all the reasons set forth above, Mr. Depp respectfully requests that this Court deny Ms. heard’s frivolous Motion in its entirety and reject her outlandish requests to set aside the jury verdict, dismiss the Complaint, or, in the alternative, order a new trial, and investigate Juror 15.’
Depp’s lawyers argue that if Heard’s team had concerns, they should have spoken up at the time because it was apparent that the man who served was not 77 years old, even though court paperwork described him as such.