A day after Johnny Depp largely won his defamation suit against Amber Heard, Heard’s lead attorney said “unequal” posts on social media about the trial turned the courtroom into a ” zoo “and influenced the jury’s verdict.
Speaking to NBC, Elaine Bredehoft said the verdict sent “a horrible message,” adding that she believed the seven-member jury could not escape the social media frenzy surrounding the six-week trial.
“How can [escape it]? ” she asked. “They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the court conference. There’s no way they haven’t been able to be influenced by that.
“It’s like the Roman Colosseum, you know? How they have seen this whole case. I was against the cameras in the courtroom and I left a record of that and argued against it because of the sensitive nature of it. But it turned it into a zoo. “
Jurors found that Depp and Heard were defaming each other. But they were substantially in favor of Depp, with his three claims backed by one of Heard’s three claims. The parties received $ 10.35 million and $ 2 million respectively.
Johnny Depp wins defamation case against Amber Heard – video
Heard’s lawyers said they would appeal.
The shout was raised on Thursday. Tarana Burke, co-founder of the #MeToo movement, said in a statement: “The way #MeToo has been co-opted and manipulated during the Johnny Depp trial against Amber Heard is a toxic catastrophe and one of the movement’s biggest defamations. we’ve never seen. “
Bredehoft said Heard told him he felt he had disappointed the women.
“One of the first things he said was, ‘I’m sorry for all these women out there. This is a setback for all women inside and outside the courtroom. ” She feels the burden of that. “
Some experts in the field of sexual and domestic violence said that the verdict should be a wake-up call to women, to redouble efforts in a system that does not guarantee equal protection.
“This is a symptom of a culture that has oppressed women since its founding,” Wendy Murphy, a former sex crime prosecutor, told the Guardian. “This is a show that shows that women need full equality under the law of this country. Without it, we get absurd verdicts like this.”
Murphy said Heard was denied equal protection because the U.S. Constitution denied women the same status since 1868, when the 14th Amendment guaranteed “equal protection of laws” without explicitly mentioning women. It was not until 1971 that a Supreme Court ruling, Reed v Reed, ruled that the different treatment of men and women was unconstitutional.
“Without constitutional equality, laws should not be applied equally on behalf of any woman by any court,” Murphy said. “But the idea that this verdict will push us back, that women will be silent, that women are afraid, sucks.
“Women will respond to this with revenge. We will stand up, talk, organize and respond.”
Lisa Bloom, a high-profile lawyer, noted that one of the charges against Heard refers to the headline of the Washington Post article in question: “I spoke out against sexual violence – and I faced anger. “Our culture needs to change,” Heard did not write.
Murphy said the “irrational nature” of the verdict, in which jurors granted Heard’s claim that Depp defamed her when her lawyer described her domestic abuse claim as “an ambush, a hoax.” – will help with any appeal.
“It may have been an irrational jury,” he said, “but it’s not uncommon for a jury to come up with a verdict in which they feel like they’re giving a little bit to both parties.
“But the fact that the jury [first] returned unharmed and were sent to the jury room is a powerful proof that it was just a stupid jury. No matter what they’ve been hanging on to. The question is why could the jury not be rational?
“Why couldn’t they see what was in front of them and instead be subjected to the distortive tactics of Depp’s defense that allowed the evidence to overwhelm them?”