Johnny Depp's lawyer has revealed why the actor was successfully able to sue ex-wife Amber Heard, just a couple of years after losing libel case in the UK.
In case you've been living on the Moon for the last two months, the 58-year-old Pirates of the Caribbean star is currently coming off a win in his defamation lawsuit against 36-year-old Heard.
On June 1, jurors came to a unanimous decision in the high-profile trial, and the court ruled that Depp was entitled to $10 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages of $5 million (with the punitive damages lowered to $350,000 to comply with Virginia state law).
Depp had been suing 36-year-old Heard after she referred to herself as a "public figure representing domestic abuse" in an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post back in 2018. Despite not mentioning her ex-husband by name, his lawyers successfully argued that the piece was about him and caused him to lose work.
His victory came nearly two years after the actor lost a libel case in the UK against The Sun newspaper.
Depp had attempted to sue the British tabloid and executive editor Dan Wootton after an article was published featuring the headline: "GONE POTTY: How can JK Rowling be 'genuinely happy' casting wife-beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?"
BBC News reports that the judge conducting the UK trial ruled that The Sun had published the article containing information that was "substantially true".
Now, in their first television appearances since winning the case, Depp's attorney's Ben Chew and Camille Vasquez have revealed why the actor was able to win one case and not the other.
In an interview with The Today Show, Vasquez explained: "It was a different process. And also, Mr Depp, and Ms Heard, in this case, were the parties."
"They had different disclosure obligations...and the overwhelming evidence that was presented in this case in Virginia far exceeded what was presented in the UK. And we believe the jury got it right."
Elsewhere in the interview, both attorneys shot down the idea floated by Heard’s lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft, that the jury in the defamation case were swayed by social media activities.
"No, I don't think there's any reason to believe that the jurors violated their oath," Chew said. "And again, that suggestion was disappointing to hear."
"It is everywhere, but at the same time, they were admonished every single night," Vasquez said about the jury. "And they had a tremendous amount of respect for the court and the process, and they were doing the best that they could."
