Attorneys share ‘every legal option Amber Heard has’ after losing Johnny Depp defamation case

Legal experts have just weighed in on every possible ground for appeal Amber Heard has at her disposal for her future appeal against Johnny Depp following the defamation case verdict.  

These insights have been brought forward by Lisa Bloom in her interview with The Independent.

Before getting to her ‘options’ Ms Bloom pointed out how, “[Ms Heard[] was found to have defamed him based on a headline that she did not write, but merely retweeted.”

“This verdict, if upheld, would cause major First Amendment problems for the millions of tweeps who RT articles all day long. Are they to be held liable for defamation if the article is inaccurate?”

Appeal on grounds of ‘suppression’:

According to Mr Weber, “The arguments on appeal are focused on what Heard believes are incorrect legal rulings by the judge. That is why making objections and motions during the course of the trial is so important to preserve these issues for appeal.”

“Based on Elaine Bredehoft's comments after the verdict, it seems they will be focusing on evidence that was ‘suppressed’ at trial, such as medical records, and perhaps arguing prejudicial evidence from [Mr Depp] was allowed to be introduced.”

“It also seems [Ms Heard’s team] took issue with the fact that the UK ruling, where a judge found multiple instances of abuse by [Mr Depp], could not be presented to the jury.”

Not only that, Ms Heard’s lawyer “could also argue there were problems with the jury instructions/jury form.”

Appeal over verdict ‘inconsistencies’:

Ms Bloom told BBC Newsnight, “How can it be that Amber Heard was defamed when Johnny Depp’s lawyer said that her allegations were a hoax, and yet Johnny Depp was also defamed when she said she was representative of domestic violence? I think that’s inconsistent, and you can’t have an inconsistent verdict.”

Appeal on Jury grounds:

Mr Weber pointed out how “[Ms Heard’s team] could even try to show that since the jury was not sequestered that they were exposed to all the Depp fans and media scrutiny and that tainted the verdict.”

But he pointed out, “On one hand, sure you can ask how they could not have been exposed and tainted by the coverage, the crowds, social media.”

Even Ms Ahouraian agreed, “It makes sense that the jury on a highly publicized case like this should be sequestered, not just ‘instructed’ to not go on the Internet or talk to anyone about the case,” she said. “That isn’t realistic in a case like this: People go home to their families, and the case is everywhere. I'm sure that, giving the jury the benefit of the doubt, perhaps when someone was checking their email or something seemingly innocuous, some information popped up.”