Earlier this week after an explosive and at times disturbing defamationtrial, a jury found Depp should be awarded the partial sum of $US15 million ($23.1m) in damages. Depp was initially seeking US$50m after Heard implied he abused her in the 2018 Washington Post op-ed. Although she did not name him, he claims her allegations are false and cost him lucrative movie roles and now the jury has agreed.
However, despite the win, the jury also found in favour of Heard, who countersued Depp for $US100m.
Heard claimed she was defamed by Depp's lawyer when he called her abuse allegations a hoax. The jury agreed to a lesser degree, awarding her just US$2m of the hefty sum first requested in damages.
The jury found the 2018 op-ed to be defamatory toward Johnny Depp. Photo / AP
Washington Post has now added an editor's note to the top of the piece which reads, "In 2019, Johnny Depp sued Amber Heard for defamation arising out of this 2018 op-ed.
"On June 1, 2022, following a trial in Fairfax County, Va. Circuit Court, a jury found Heard liable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory: (1) 'I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change.' (2) 'Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.' "(3) 'I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.' The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit."
In a legal analysis, Emily D Baker told People Magazine the decision to add an editor's note to the op-ed instead of deleting the piece entirely is a "smart move".
Amber Heard reacts, with her lawyer Elaine Bredehoft at as the verdict is read in the courtroom. Photo / Court TV via AP
"Because this case is so watched and commented on, I think the op-ed is still needed for context. I appreciate that they put up the notice rather than take the op-ed down. And I appreciate that they included, with specificity, exactly the statements that were found to be defamatory.
"It would have been easier to just take it down and say nothing. But I appreciate they're saying, 'Anyone who's reading this, this is what happened'," Baker added in the legal analysis.
"The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. 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 continued, "I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publically shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.
"I believe Johnny's attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the UK."
She concluded her statement by saying, "I'm sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American - to speak freely and openly."
The announcement of the verdicts concludes the televised trial that has captured the public eye for over six weeks as Depp attempted to restore his reputation.
However, the trial quickly turned into a spectacle of a vicious marriage and has seen explosive details of their tumultuous relationship laid bare before the court, with both sides alleging shocking behaviour and at times exposing disturbing evidence.
