Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[The Alma Mater]

Hmm. While I have no love for Heard, that does sound a bit restrictive. In essence poor people would never be able to appeal.
Then again, that is true for all options.

It’s completely fair. Not being able to pay a small fraction of the total judgement isn’t a valid reason to appeal. That shouldn’t be dressed up.

The bond would be for the *full* amount owed. Plus 6% interest per year.

[Galloism]

I believe it's A, because Depp can also appeal the 2 million dollar judgement against him. But I'm not 100% certain.

I know nothing of Virginia civ. pro, but I would have guessed the time make for appeal would be nearly up. (If not already elapsed). I could be wrong though.

She has 30 days from the final order, which was Friday. So there's 28 days left.

[Galloism]

It’s completely fair. Not being able to pay a small fraction of the total judgement isn’t a valid reason to appeal. That shouldn’t be dressed up.

The bond would be for the *full* amount owed. Plus 6% interest per year.

Interestingly, if she hadn't countersued, she could have appealed for $500. But that little bit of Virginia law isn't available if there's a crosscomplaint.

[The Alma Mater]

The bond would be for the *full* amount owed. Plus 6% interest per year.

Interestingly, if she hadn't countersued, she could have appealed for $500. But that little bit of Virginia law isn't available if there's a crosscomplaint.

Ah, so that is the origin of option C
Thanks. A indeed seems to be the most likely then.

[Kerwa]

I know nothing of Virginia civ. pro, but I would have guessed the time make for appeal would be nearly up. (If not already elapsed). I could be wrong though.

She has 30 days from the final order, which was Friday. So there's 28 days left.

Oh, okay. I’ve not been paying close attention.

Thanks.

[Galloism]

Interestingly, if she hadn't countersued, she could have appealed for $500. But that little bit of Virginia law isn't available if there's a crosscomplaint.

Ah, so that is the origin of option C
Thanks. A indeed seems to be the most likely then.

So the only way she can appeal without putting up the judgement amount (which I *think* is 10.35 million + 6%) is to show financial hardship and get a waiver. There's an option for that in the law, but she'll have to convince the judge it applies to her.

[The Alma Mater]

Ah, so that is the origin of option C
Thanks. A indeed seems to be the most likely then.

So the only way she can appeal without putting up the judgement amount (which I *think* is 10.35 million + 6%) is to show financial hardship and get a waiver. There's an option for that in the law, but she'll have to convince the judge it applies to her.

As mentioned she is currently partying in the Hamptons... so unless she is indeed staying rentfree with a friend that will be tricky, yes.

[Ethel mermania]

So the only way she can appeal without putting up the judgement amount (which I *think* is 10.35 million + 6%) is to show financial hardship and get a waiver. There's an option for that in the law, but she'll have to convince the judge it applies to her.

As mentioned she is currently partying in the Hamptons... so unless she is indeed staying rentfree with a friend that will be tricky, yes.

I think the judge could require a smaller bond, but I am not sure of Virginia law.

[Ethel mermania]

And Amber appeals. Asking for a waiver on the bond

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/style/amber- ... ghfuIBhcuU

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

Johnny Depp certainly has some personality problems. He is a drug addict and is probably narcissistic to a certain degree. That said, I never believed that he was actually capable of being physically abusive. While Depp is no angel, he is nowhere near the evil demon that Amber Heard is. I am glad she has been exposed.

[Juristonia]

That said, I never believed that he was actually capable of being physically abusive. .

Aside from this case, he's been sued at least twice for assault now, so where is this lack of belief coming from?

[The Lone Alliance]

And Amber appeals. Asking for a waiver on the bond

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/style/amber- ... ghfuIBhcuU

Like most spoiled brats they can't accept that there are consequences for their actions.

[Katganistan]

That said, I never believed that he was actually capable of being physically abusive. .

Aside from this case, he's been sued at least twice for assault now, so where is this lack of belief coming from?

Which was the first suit? Heard? and what is the second?

I've heard a lot about him trashing hotel rooms, but not so much about hitting women.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

Aside from this case, he's been sued at least twice for assault now, so where is this lack of belief coming from?

Which was the first suit? Heard? and what is the second?

I've heard a lot about him trashing hotel rooms, but not so much about hitting women.

Same. It seems that the only person Depp abuses is himself.

[The Alma Mater]

Aside from this case, he's been sued at least twice for assault now, so where is this lack of belief coming from?

Which was the first suit? Heard? and what is the second?

I've heard a lot about him trashing hotel rooms, but not so much about hitting women.

Greg Brooks I assume.

[Katganistan]

Which was the first suit? Heard? and what is the second?

I've heard a lot about him trashing hotel rooms, but not so much about hitting women.

Greg Brooks I assume.

That case hasn't been argued yet, and if it's true that there are 40 time-stamped photos from a phone documenting that no punches were thrown, I don't see the suit going anywhere.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-johnny-dep ... ed-1716453

https://www.sportskeeda.com/pop-culture ... ault-trial

[Galloism]

So this randomly came across my feed. There's a lot of hub-bub about Juror 15. Basically, the court intended to call John Smith (not real name) who was born in 1945, and John smith (not real name) showed up who was born in 1970. Amber Heard's lawyers argued that this was fraud in the jury, and should be cause to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.

To wit:

The Court should investigate whether Juror 15 properly served on the jury. On the juror panel list sent to counsel before voir dire, the Court noted that the individual who would later be designated Juror 15 had a birth year of 1945. Juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945. Publicly available information demonstrates that he appears to have been born in 1970. This discrepancy raises the question whether Juror 15 actually received a summons for jury duty and was properly vetted by the Court to serve on the jury.

They go on to cite the Virginia code laying out the verification procedures, and argued due process was violated.

They do, to their credit, cite the following from Virginia code as well:

Ms. Heard recognizes that Va. Code 8.01-353 states that "[a]ny error in the information shown... on the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information." But the apparent error in the jury information form relating to Juror 15 is not the basis for Ms. Heard's concerns. Is the potential that Juror 15 was not, in fact, the same individual that the court assigned as Juror 15 and/or was not verified by the Court Clerk's office as required by Va. Code 8.01-353.1. This would warrant setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial.

Interesting argument they have. But the judge felt differently, and for good reasons:

The purpose of voir dire is to obtain a fair and impartial jury. Voir dire is necessary to ascertain "whether any juror has any interest in the case, or any bias or prejudice in relation to it, and that he in fact stands indifference to the cause."

The summons issued to Juror Fifteen listed his legal name and address and no birth date was noted. The Court has pulled Juror Fifteen's Jury Questionnaire (attached as redacted; filed under seal). Juror Fifteen completed the Jury Questionnaire as himself filling in his proper birth date. The information presented on the Jury Questionnaire matches the information Juror Fifteen provided to the Court. Juror Fifteen was vetted by the Court on the record and met the statutory requirements for service. The parties also questioned the jury panel for a full day and informed the Court that the jury panel was acceptable. Therefore, Due Process was guaranteed and provided to all parties in this litigation. Voir dire was conducted in a fair and impartial manner, with the Court and both parties examining the potential jurors. There is no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing.

Further, the Defendant was provided the jury list five days prior to the commencement of trial and knew or should have known about the mistake any time during the seven-week pendency of this trial. She had every opportunity to object to or to voir dire on the issue. Parties generally must make objections at the time of a ruling or order is made to put the Court on notice that an issue is meant to be preserved. Despite Defendant's assertion in footnote 9 of her Motion, Va. Code 8.01-353(A) clearly states:

"Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for mistrial or assignable as erorr on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information."

(emphasis added). Consequently, Defendant (as well as Plaintiff), had an affirmative obligation to ensure the accuracy of the information provided for the jury panel. A party cannot wait until receive an adverse verdict to object, for the first time, on an issue known since the beginning of trial. The issue has been waived.

Even if, arguendo, the objection has not been waived, objections to any alleged discrepancies in jury lists and any legal disabilities of potential jurors must be made in accordance with Virginia Code Section 8.01-352. That section provides, in relevant part:

"Unless objection to such irregularity or disability is made pursuant to subsection A herein and unless it appears that the irregularity was intentional or that the irregularity or disability be such as to probably cause injustice... in a civil case to the party making the objection, then such irregularity or disability shall not be cause for summing a new panel or juror or for setting aside a verdict or granting a new trial."

Va. Code 8.01-352(B). Furthermore, while parties must make this objection while following the above procedure, the party moving under this Code Section must provide some evidence or prejudice. Defendant does not allege Juror Fifteen's inclusion on the jury prejudiced her in any way. The juror was vetted, sat for the entire jury, deliberated, and reached a verdict. The only evidence before this Court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the Court's instructions, and orders. This Court is bound by the competent decision of the jury.

(footnotes omitted, emphasis changed, added, or removed, in accordance with my desires for emphasis rather than the Court's)

Basically, here's the story as far as we can see:

A jury notice went out to John Smith (Sr)
John Smith (Sr) lives with his son, John Smith (Jr)
John Smith (Jr) opened the mail and saw a jury summons with his name on it.
John Smith (Jr) showed up for Jury duty. He put his actual birthdate of 1970.
No one cared. The Court didn't notice or care, Depp's team didn't notice or care, and Heard's team didn't notice or care.
They questioned the jury, and approved the Jury for the court. The trial went on for 6 weeks + deliberation.
Now that Heard's team lost, they're saying he's a fake juror, and the verdict should be set aside.

Here's the thing:

1) She would have to show it was deliberate, or
2) She was prejudiced against in some way

There's no evidence of any deliberate mistake here.
There's no evidence, nor any argument made, that somehow this prejudiced her in any way. How was she harmed by the fact that John Smith's son thought the summons was for him and showed up?

A lot has been made over the "fake juror", but this is essentially a paperwork error. No intent. No objection by the parties. No prejudice.

Goodbye.

[Harjanika]

And now, this thread is in the history books of NS forums...

[Luna Amore]

And now, this thread is in the history books of NS forums...

Don't gravedig