Actress Amber Heard is not able to pay her ex-husband Johnny Depp extra than $10 million in damages, her attorney stated Thursday, after a US jury took the facet of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” supermegacelebrity in a sour defamation trial.
The high-profile televised courtroom docket conflict ended Wednesday whilst a seven-man or woman jury determined that Depp and Heard had defamed every different, however weighed in some distance extra strongly with Depp.
The jury, after a six-week trial proposing claims and counterclaims of home abuse, offered him $10.35 million in damages, in assessment with $2 million offered to Heard.
Asked on NBC’s TODAY display if Heard could be capable of pay up, her legal professional Elaine Bredehoft stated: “Oh no, truely now no longer.”
She introduced that the “Aquaman” supermegacelebrity desires to attraction the decision and “has a few exquisite grounds for it.”
The 58-year-antique Depp, who misplaced a libel case in opposition to the British tabloid The Sun in London in 2020 for calling him a “wife-beater,” celebrated the cut up verdict withinside the case as a victory even as Heard stated she became “heart-broken.”
Depp sued Heard over an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in December 2018 wherein she defined herself as a “public determine representing home abuse.”
The Texas-born Heard did now no longer call Depp withinside the piece, however he sued her for implying he became a home abuser and sought $50 million in damages.
The 36-year-antique Heard countersued for $one hundred million, announcing she became defamed with the aid of using statements made with the aid of using Depp’s attorney, Adam Waldman, who advised the Daily Mail her abuse claims have been a “hoax.”
‘Horrible message’
Bredehoft stated Depp’s prison crew labored to “demonize” Heard and suppressed vital proof withinside the trial, stopping the jurors from inspecting proof of Depp’s alleged abuse.
“A quantity of factors have been allowed on this courtroom docket that ought to now no longer had been allowed, and it brought about the jury to be confused,” she stated.
“We had an giant quantity of proof that became suppressed in this situation that became withinside the UK case,” she stated. “In the United Kingdom case whilst it got here in, Amber won, Mr. Depp misplaced.”
The attorney stated the ruling bodes unwell for the MeToo motion and could discourage ladies from reporting sexual harassment and abuse.
“It’s a terrible message,” Bredehoft stated. “It’s a substantial setback, due to the fact it is precisely what it means.
“Unless you pull out your telecellsmartphone and also you video your partner or your substantial different beating you, successfully you might not be believed.”
Bredehoft became requested with the aid of using TODAY approximately Heard’s instantaneously response to the decision withinside the trial, which passed off in Fairfax County Circuit Court close to americaA capital.
“One of the primary matters she stated is that, ‘I am so sorry to all the ones ladies out there,'” she stated. “This is a setback for all ladies in and out of doors the courtroom, and she or he feels the weight of that.”
‘Zoo’
In a statement, Heard stated “the frustration I sense these days is past words.
“I’m heartbroken that the mountain of proof nonetheless became now no longer sufficient to get up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she stated.
For his part, Depp welcomed the decision, announcing “The jury gave me my lifestyles back.”
“The great is but to return back and a brand new bankruptcy has ultimately begun,” Depp stated in a statement.
Bredehoft stated social media can also additionally have had an effect at the case even though jurors were advised now no longer to examine it.
“There’s no manner they could not had been stimulated with the aid of using it, and it became terrible,” she stated. “It sincerely, sincerely became lopsided.”
Heard’s legal professional additionally stated she antagonistic having the trial televised.
“I became in opposition to cameras withinside the courtroom, and I went on document with that and had argued in opposition to it due to the touchy nature of this, however it made it a zoo,” she stated.