水曜日に, the 58-year-old actor 名誉毀損3件すべてに勝訴 そして受賞しました $15 陪審による百万の損害賠償. 聞くだけで支払う必要があります $10.35 懲罰的損害賠償を制限するバージニア州法による百万 (裁判官は金額を減らしました).
デップがハードを訴えた, 36, にとって $50 百万の損害賠償, 彼女が書いて彼を中傷したと主張する 2018 家庭内暴力の告発を進めることについての論説, 彼女は彼の名前を挙げなかったが. その間, Hedは反訴を求めて提訴した $100 百万の損害賠償, デップが彼女と彼女の主張の信用を傷つけるキャンペーンの先頭に立ったと主張した. “偽” と “でっち上げ,” 彼女のキャリアと評判を傷つける.
In regards to Heard’s countersuit brought against Depp, he was found to have defamed her on one of three claims. 彼女は授与されました $2 百万の損害賠償.
“It is a strange result,” lawyer and legal analyst Emily D. Baker tells PEOPLE. “Johnny Depp won all three of his defamation claims, and Amber Heard won one of her counterclaims.”
Family law attorney and former psychologist David Glass also feels it was “a very unexpected result,” それが “relatively rare” for both parties to simultaneously have wins and losses in a case like this.
“It means that the jury found that each of them were telling the truth enough to get their verdict,” 彼は人々に話します. “But it’s clearly in favor of Johnny Depp because the jury just did not believe anything that Amber Heard had said — other than her expert saying that her career was slightly damaged.”
Both lawyers point to the damages awarded to both Depp and Heard in the case.
“What I think spoke very loudly is that the jury awarded $10 million in compensatory damages to Johnny Depp [と] $5 million in punitive, [それでも] that was reduced by the court already because Virginia does not allow more than $350,000 in punitive damages,” former L.A. deputy district attorney Baker explains.
彼女は付け加えます, “The punitive damages are the punishment damages, saying we don’t like what you did. そしてそれは 5 million number is, 私が思うに, a message.”
Baker points out that, when it came to Heard’s countersuit brought against Depp, the jury awarded the アクアマン 女優 $2 百万の損害賠償, “but zero in punitive.” 彼女が言います, “That I think was the loudest message the jury sent.”
Glass says that the punitive damages awarded to Depp signify that the jury felt that Heard “did this on purpose to try and hurt him.” Baker adds that the punitive damages say the jury “did not believe” 聞いた.
関連動画: Johnny Depp V. アンバーハード: Biggest Bombshells And Revelations From The Trial’s Ending Moments
その間, Baker believes that Depp was facing an “uphill battle” in the trial. でも, 彼女が言います, “I think Johnny Depp’s legal team had the advantage of knowing how Amber Heard would present to a jury after seeing her testify in the U.K. And I think that they relied on that — they relied on whether a jury’s going to believe her or not, they relied on her past statements.”
Glass believes Depp’s team did “a good job with his testimony in preparing him because he came off as a hurt child,” 彼は言います. “And they talked about his own childhood upbringing to bring around some sympathy for him. And that was a brilliant move because they allowed him to act that way.”
As for Heard’s team, 彼は言います, “I think they did the best they could. She wanted to tell her story. She told it in a very dramatic fashion. Perhaps she went too far in bringing up new stories that had never been brought up before, and perhaps that’s what turned the jury.”
ストーリーを見逃すことはありません—サインアップしてください PEOPLEの無料の日刊ニュースレター PEOPLEが提供する最高のものを最新の状態に保つ, ジューシーな有名人のニュースから説得力のあるヒューマンインタレスト記事まで.
最終的に, 彼は言います, “This case boiled down to one [volatile] relationship that lasted about a year and had allegations on both sides. So it’s a very unusual, very unique case.”
Glass says he doesn’t believe the case itself will have “a lot of influence elsewhere other than maybe in law schools teaching about defamation. なぜなら, honestly when you go to law school, you’re taught that these defamation cases almost 一度もない 上半身裸のマックス・シャーザーは、ドジャースのジャイアンツに対するNLDSの勝利を祝いながら、彼の「お父さんの体」を披露します, and it’s very hard to prove the damages — to link very short, small statements to any sort of real monetary damage to your reputation or your employment.
“And so this sort of stands out as an outlier that I think will be talked about, but only in terms of it really doesn’t fit the elements of defamation.”