Home World Amber Heard “Absolutely Not” Able To Pay $10 Million In Damages: Lawyer

Amber Heard “Absolutely Not” Able To Pay $10 Million In Damages: Lawyer

0
Amber Heard “Absolutely Not” Able To Pay $10 Million In Damages: Lawyer

[ad_1]

Amber Heard 'Absolutely Not' Able To Pay $10 Million In Damages: Lawyer

Heard’s lawyer mentioned the actress desires to attraction the decision and “has some excellent grounds for it.”

Washington:

Actress Amber Heard is unable to pay her ex-husband Johnny Depp greater than $10 million in damages, her lawyer mentioned Thursday, after a US jury took the facet of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star in a bitter defamation trial.

The high-profile televised courtroom battle ended Wednesday when a seven-person jury discovered that Depp and Heard had defamed one another, however weighed in much more strongly with Depp.

The jury, after a six-week trial that includes claims and counterclaims of home abuse, awarded him $10.35 million in damages, in distinction with $2 million awarded to Heard.

Asked on NBC’s TODAY present if Heard will be capable of pay up, her lawyer Elaine Bredehoft mentioned: “Oh no, absolutely not.”

She added that the “Aquaman” star desires to attraction the decision and “has some excellent grounds for it.”

The 58-year-old 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 break up verdict within the case as a victory whereas Heard mentioned she was “heart-broken.”

Depp sued Heard over an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in December 2018 through which she described herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”

The Texas-born Heard didn’t title Depp within the piece, however he sued her for implying he was a home abuser and sought $50 million in damages.

The 36-year-old Heard countersued for $100 million, saying she was defamed by statements made by Depp’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, who informed the Daily Mail her abuse claims have been a “hoax.”

‘Horrible message’

Bredehoft mentioned Depp’s authorized group labored to “demonize” Heard and suppressed essential proof within the trial, stopping the jurors from inspecting proof of Depp’s alleged abuse.

“A number of things were allowed in this court that should not have been allowed, and it caused the jury to be confused,” she mentioned.

“We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case that was in the UK case,” she mentioned. “In the UK case when it came in, Amber won, Mr. Depp lost.”

The lawyer mentioned the ruling bodes in poor health for the MeToo motion and can discourage girls from reporting sexual harassment and abuse.

“It’s a horrible message,” Bredehoft mentioned. “It’s a significant setback, because that’s exactly what it means.

“Unless you pull out your cellphone and also you video your partner or your important different beating you, successfully you will not be believed.”

Bredehoft was asked by TODAY about Heard’s immediate reaction to the verdict in the trial, which took place in Fairfax County Circuit Court near the US capital.

“One of the primary issues she mentioned is that, ‘I’m so sorry to all these girls on the market,'” she said. “This is a setback for all girls in and outdoors the courtroom, and he or she feels the burden of that.”

‘Zoo’

In a statement, Heard said “the frustration I really feel at present is past phrases.

“I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she mentioned.

For his half, Depp welcomed the decision, saying “The jury gave me my life back.”

“The best is yet to come and a new chapter has finally begun,” Depp mentioned in an announcement.

Bredehoft mentioned social media could have had an influence on the case though jurors had been instructed not to have a look at it.

“There’s no way they couldn’t have been influenced by it, and it was horrible,” she mentioned. “It really, really was lopsided.”

Heard’s lawyer additionally mentioned she opposed having the trial televised.

“I was against cameras in the courtroom, and I went on record with that and had argued against it because of the sensitive nature of this, but it made it a zoo,” she mentioned.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is revealed from a syndicated feed.)

[ad_2]

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here