Johnny Depp and Amber Heard both told jurors ‘they want their lives back’ at end of 6-week trial
Depp’s lawyer: "This case for Mr Depp has never been about money. It is about Mr Depp's reputation and freeing him from the prison in which he has lived for the last six years."
After a six-week trial in which Johnny Depp and Amber Heard tore into each other over the nasty details of their short marriage, both sides told a jury the exact same thing Friday (May 27) – they want their lives back.
Heard "ruined his life by falsely telling the world she was a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of Mr Depp," Depp lawyer Camille Vasquez told the jury in closing arguments in his libel trial against his ex-wife.
Heard's lawyers, meanwhile, said Depp ruined Heard's life by launching a smear campaign against her when she divorced him and publicly accused him of assault in 2016.
"In Mr Depp's world, you don't leave Mr Depp," said Heard's lawyer, J Benjamin Rottenborn. "If you do, he will start a campaign of global humiliation against you."
Depp is hoping the trial will help restore his reputation, though it has turned into a spectacle of a vicious marriage, with broadcast cameras in the courtroom capturing every twist to an increasingly rapt audience as fans weighed in on social media and lined up overnight for coveted courtroom seats.
"This case for Mr Depp has never been about money," said Depp lawyer Benjamin Chew. "It is about Mr Depp's reputation and freeing him from the prison in which he has lived for the last six years."
Depp is suing Heard for US$50 million (S$68.72 million) in Virginia's Fairfax County Circuit Court over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse." His lawyers say he was defamed by the article even though it never mentioned his name.
Heard filed a US$100 million counterclaim against the former Pirates of the Caribbean star after his lawyer called her allegations a hoax. Though the counterclaim has received less attention at the trial, Heard lawyer Elaine Bredehoft said it provides an avenue for the jury to compensate Heard for the abuse Depp inflicted on her even after they split by orchestrating a smear campaign.
"We're asking you to finally hold this man responsible," she told the jury. "He has never accepted responsibility for anything in his life."
The seven-person civil jury began its deliberations at 3pm Friday.
Depp says he never struck Heard and that she concocted the abuse allegations. He has said he was the one physically attacked by Heard multiple times.
"There is an abuser in this courtroom, but it is not Mr Depp," Vasquez said.
During the trial, Heard testified about more than a dozen episodes of physical and sexual assault that she said Depp inflicted on her.
Vasquez, in her closing, noted that Heard had to revise her testimony about the first time she said she was struck. Heard said Depp hit her after she inadvertently laughed at one of his tattoos. Heard initially said it happened in 2013 – after a fairy-tale year of courtship and romance – but later corrected herself to say it happened in 2012, very early in their relationship.
"Now in this courtroom she has suddenly erased an entire year of magic," Vasquez said.
Jurors have seen multiple photos of Heard with marks and bruises on her face, but some photos show only mild redness, and others show more severe bruising.
Vasquez accused Heard of doctoring the photos and said evidence that Heard has embellished some of her injuries is proof that all her claims of abuse are unfounded.
"You either believe all of it, or none of it," she said. "Either she is a victim of ugly, horrible abuse, or she is a woman who is willing to say absolutely anything."
In Heard's closing, Rottenborn said the nitpicking over Heard's evidence of abuse ignores the fact there's overwhelming evidence on her behalf and sends a dangerous message to domestic-violence victims.
"If you didn't take pictures, it didn't happen," Rottenborn said. "If you did take pictures, they're fake. If you didn't tell your friends, they're lying. If you did tell your friends, they're part of the hoax."
And he rejected Vasquez's suggestion that if the jury thinks Heard might be embellishing on a single act of abuse that they have to disregard everything she says. He said Depp's libel claim must fail if Heard suffered even a single incident of abuse.
"They're trying to trick you into thinking Amber has to be perfect to win," Rottenborn said.
When the jury deliberates, it will have to focus not only on whether there was abuse but also whether Heard's op-ed piece can be considered legally defamatory. The article itself focuses mostly on policy questions of domestic violence, but Depp's lawyer point to two passages in the article, as well as an online headline that they say defamed Depp.
In the first passage, Heard writes that "two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath." Depp's lawyers call it a clear reference to Depp, given that Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic violence in 2016 – two years before she wrote the article.
In a second passage she states, "I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse."
The online headline reads Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture's wrath.
"She didn't mention his name. She didn't have to," Chew said. "Everyone knew exactly who and what Ms Heard was talking about."
Heard's lawyers said Heard can't be held liable for the headline because she didn't write it, and that the two passages in the article are not about the abuse allegations themselves but how Heard's life changed after she made them.
Rottenborn told jurors that even if they tend to believe Depp's claim that he never abused Heard, he still can't win his case because Heard has a First Amendment right to weigh in on matters of public debate.