Nearly two weeks after the highly publicized defamation trial of Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard concluded, Amber Heard breaks her silence in an exclusive interview with Savannah Guthrie and NBC News.
Jury Finds Heard Liable for Defamation
In a verdict that captivated the nation, a jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, found Amber Heard liable for defamation on all three claims brought by Johnny Depp. The jury awarded Depp $15 million in damages, including $5 million in punitive damages. However, due to Virginia state law, the punitive damages were capped at $350,000, bringing the total award to $10,350,000.
The jury also awarded Heard $2 million in damages in her countersuit against Depp for a statement made by Depp’s former attorney, Adam Waldman, to the Daily Mail, in which he claimed that Heard and her friends had “roughed up the penthouse” and fabricated a story of abuse.
Heard Speaks Out in First Post-Trial Interview
Following the verdict, Heard remained silent until her recent interview with Savannah Guthrie, which aired on NBC’s Today Show. In the interview, Heard addressed the online harassment she has faced and discussed her reaction to the verdict.
“I don’t care what one thinks about me or what judgments you want to make about what happened in the privacy of my own home, in my marriage, behind closed doors,” Heard stated. “I don’t presume the average person should know those things. And so I don’t take it personally.”
Guthrie questioned Heard about the jury’s decision, stating, “The jury looked at the evidence you presented, they listened to your testimony, and they did not believe you. They thought you were lying.”
Heard responded by saying, “How could they make a judgment? How could they not come to that conclusion? They had sat in those seats and heard over three weeks of non-stop, relentless testimony from paid employees and, towards the end of the trial, randos, as I say.”
Heard Maintains Innocence, Cites Social Media Influence
Despite the jury’s verdict, Heard maintained her innocence and suggested that the pervasive presence of social media during the trial influenced the outcome.
“Even somebody who is sure I’m deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I’m lying, you still couldn’t look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there’s been a fair representation,” Heard asserted. “You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair.”
Legal Teams Respond to Interview
Following the release of the interview clips, Heard’s legal team released a statement emphasizing that Heard’s intention was to respond to the numerous statements and interviews given by Depp’s legal team.
“Johnny Depp’s legal team blanketed the media for days after the verdict with numerous statements and interviews on television, and Depp himself did the same on social media,” the statement read. “Ms. Heard simply intended to respond to what they aggressively did last week; she did so by expressing her thoughts and feelings, much of which she was not allowed to do on the witness stand.”
‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Faces Copyright Lawsuit
In other entertainment law news, Paramount Pictures faces a copyright lawsuit over its blockbuster hit ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ The lawsuit, filed by the family of Ehud Yonay, the author of the 1983 magazine article that inspired the original ‘Top Gun’ film, alleges that Paramount produced the sequel without securing the rights to the story.
Yonay’s family claims that the rights to the story reverted back to them under a provision in copyright law known as the Copyright Act of 1976. This provision allows authors or their heirs to reclaim the rights to their works after 35 years.
Paramount maintains that it obtained the necessary rights from Yonay prior to his death in 2006. However, Yonay’s family argues that Paramount was aware that the rights would revert back to them and that the studio failed to take the necessary steps to secure the rights for the sequel.
Disbarred Attorney Sentenced for Threatening Senators
In Pennsylvania, disbarred attorney Kenom Shirk was sentenced to time served for threatening to kill three Democratic members of the U.S. Senate. Shirk, who was angered by the results of the 2020 presidential election, drove from Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C., with firearms and other weapons in his car.
Prosecutors argued that Shirk posed a serious threat to the senators and that his actions warranted a significant prison sentence. However, U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson sentenced Shirk to time served, which amounted to 16 months and 20 days in prison, and one year of supervised release.
The sentence sparked debate about the severity of punishment for threats against public officials, with some arguing that Shirk’s actions deserved a harsher penalty.
