According to information from TMZAmber Heard’s lawyers are reportedly requesting a new trial arguing that one of the jurors in the trial against Johnny Depp was an impostor.
And it goes on and on… Wednesday, June 1, after six weeks of trial in court in Fairfax, Amber Heard was found guilty of defamation of her ex-husband Johnny Depp. In question: an article published in the washington post in December 2018 in which the actress recounts – without quoting the actor – the domestic violence of which she was the victim. She was ordered to pay $15 million in damages – before the sentence was reduced to $10 million after a jury error. The court also found that Johnny Depp had also defamed Amber Heard, and sentenced him to pay 2 million. Immediately after the verdict, the actress’ lawyers announced their intention to appeal the jury’s decision.
Was one of the jurors in the Heard-Depp trial an impostor?
But, Amber Heard’s lawyers might have found another strategy. According to information from TMZ, they are reportedly currently trying to overturn the verdict accusing one of the jurors of being an impostor. They would have filed several documents in court to request the holding of a new trial (but not an appeal) advancing several arguments. First, that the evidence provided by Johnny Depp’s lawyers to convince the jury that Amber Heard’s words had harmed her career was insufficient, and yet the jury decided to find the actress guilty. Then that Johnny Depp’s career was in decline before the publication in December 2018 of the article deemed defamatory. And, finally, that the lawsuit would be invalid because of a procedural defect.
Amber Heard’s legal team would claim that one of the jurors may not have been the person who was summoned to trial and that the court did not verify his identity properly. On his papers, juror No. 15 was born in 1945, and, according to Amber Heard’s lawyers, he would be younger than that. He would have been born in the 1970s. It would therefore be a usurper. They therefore ask the court to investigate. And, if it turns out that there was indeed an imposture, it would be a reason to annul the judgment. Back to square one ?