Depp v. Heard

Where it standsFinished. The jury answered all of it on June 1, 2022.

1. His claim · Three sentences in the op-ed

   What he sued over

   Did the sentence defame him?

   Yes, for all three

   This is where his side of the case starts. On December 18, 2018, the Washington Post published an op-ed under Amber Heard’s name, about what happens to women who speak up about abuse. It never mentions Johnny Depp by name. He sued her for defamation anyway, which means he says it hurt his reputation by stating things about him that were false.

   He didn’t sue over the whole piece. He picked out three sentences from it, and one of those is the headline, which the newspaper wrote and not her. Each of the three goes through the four questions inside this card separately, and it needs a yes to all four.

   A yes to all four is needed

   Question 1

   Is it of and concerning the claimant?

   “Of and concerning” is the court’s way of asking if a statement is actually about the person suing over it. The claimant is whoever is suing over that statement, so that’s him for the op-ed sentences and her for the lawyer’s statements. The statement doesn’t have to use their name. It’s enough that people reading it, who know the background, would understand who it means.

   This question matters most for the op-ed, because it never names him. If the jury had decided those sentences weren’t about him, his case would have ended right here. A yes moves the statement on to question 2. A no ends it for that statement.

   and

   Question 2

   Is it a false statement of fact?

   There are really two things packed into this one. First, the statement has to be saying something as a fact, meaning something that can be shown to be true or false. An opinion can’t be defamation, no matter how harsh it is. Second, that fact has to be false. If what was said is true, the claim over that statement is finished, because the truth is a complete defense.

   For the op-ed, the jury wasn’t asked about the marriage in general. They were asked if what each of those three sentences said or implied about him was false.

   and

   Question 3

   Is it defamatory in meaning?

   A statement can be false and still not be defamation. To count, it has to be the kind of thing that damages a person’s reputation, the kind that makes people think less of them. And it doesn’t have to say it outright. What a statement implies counts just as much as what it says word for word.

   That’s the only reason an op-ed that never names him could go in front of a jury in the first place. His claim was about what those sentences implied about him, not what they literally said.

   and

   Question 4

   Was it published with actual malice?

   This is the hardest of the four to prove. Actual malice sounds like it’s about spite or bad intentions, but in court it means something more specific. It means the person put the statement out knowing it was false, or had serious doubts about it being true and put it out anyway.

   It’s only on the list because both of them are public figures, and the law makes it harder on purpose for well-known people to win a defamation case. It also has to be proven to a higher standard than usual. In most lawsuits “more likely than not” is enough. Here it has to be clear and convincing, which is a step above that.

   If yes

   All four yes

   The sentence is actionable

   The op-ed, scored

   Three of three

   Actionable just means the statement is something you can win a lawsuit over. A statement only gets here if the jury said yes to all four questions about it. Only the statements that make it this far can be counted when the jury decides how much money is owed, which is called damages.

   This is how his side came out. The jury said yes to all four questions on all three of the op-ed sentences, including the headline she didn’t write. They awarded him $10 million in compensatory damages, which is money to make up for the harm done, and another $5 million in punitive damages, which is money meant purely as punishment.

   Virginia puts a legal limit on punitive damages, so the judge cut that $5 million down to $350,000. That left him with $10.35 million.

   If no

   Any one no

   That sentence fails

   The op-ed, scored

   None of the three did

   The four questions aren’t a score where three out of four is good enough. A statement needs all four. If the jury says no to even one of them, that statement is out completely and no money can be awarded for it.

   But it’s only that one statement that is out. Each of the others gets its own run through the same four questions, so one failing doesn’t take the rest down with it.

   Either way

2. Her counterclaim · Three statements by his lawyer

   What she counterclaimed over

   Did the statement defame her?

   Yes, for one of three

   This is where her side starts. After he sued her, she sued him back inside the same case, which is called a counterclaim. Hers isn’t about anything he said himself. It’s about three statements his lawyer, Adam Waldman, gave to the Daily Mail in April and June 2020, each one calling her abuse allegations a hoax.

   Her argument is that the lawyer was speaking for him, so he answers for what was said. Her three statements go through the same four questions as his three. That makes six statements in total, and that’s all the jury was ever asked to decide.

   If no

   Any one no

   That statement fails

   The lawyer’s statements, scored

   Two of three did

   Two of the lawyer’s three statements ended up here. They were the two that called her allegations a hoax in broader terms. A statement needs a yes to all four questions, and the jury didn’t give these two that, so no money could be awarded for them.

   It works the same way it does for his sentences. One statement failing doesn’t take the others down with it, which is how her third one could still succeed.

   If yes

   All four yes

   The statement is actionable

   The lawyer’s statements, scored

   One of three

   This is how her side came out. Only one of the lawyer’s three statements made it through all four questions. That was the one claiming she and her friends staged the penthouse between two 911 calls. The other two, which called her allegations a hoax in broader terms, failed. The jury awarded her $2 million in compensatory damages and nothing in punitive damages.

   So each of them was found to have defamed the other, but the amounts were nowhere close. He appealed this one finding and she filed an appeal as well. Both were dropped when the two of them settled, so no higher court ever reviewed any of it.