EXPLAINED: Why Johnny Depp won in his defamation trial in the US after losing in the UK

A UK court found Amber Heard’s claims of abuse to be true. A US court ruled them false. These are the reasons for Johnny Depp’s shock win after losing just two years earlier.

Two years after Amber Heard wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post claiming she was a victim of domestic abuse, Johnny Depp lost a libel trial in the United Kingdom.

He was ordered to pay $841,733 in legal fees, denied the right of appeal, and was dropped from major film franchises Fantastic Beasts and Pirates of the Caribbean.

Two years after that, Depp won a defamation trial in the United States, received a judgment of US$15 million in damages, restored his reputation and got his “life back”

Here’s why:

THE DEFENDANT

In the UK, Johnny Depp did not sue Amber Heard but rather brought his suit against the News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun.

The Sun, citing the Heard’s op-ed, labelled Depp a “wife-beater” in the headline of its 2018 story. They successfully defended the case citing the legal claims Heard made in her divorce proceedings against Depp.

In the US, Depp sued Heard directly rather than The Washington Post, which has First Amendment protections of freedom of speech.

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp arrive at the High Court in London in 2020. Picture: AFP.

THE LOCATION

In the UK, the trial was held at a High Court in the cosmopolitan city of London while in the US, it was in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Heard’s legal team unsuccessfully tried to have the trial moved to California, where they both reside, rather than the more rural state of Virginia, where The Washington Post is published and has its printing presses.

Johnny Depp outside the High Court after losing his libel case against The Sun newspaper. Picture: Getty.

The location becomes relevant for two reasons.

First, California has a stronger statute to get lawsuits dismissed if they’re ruled to be meritless. In Virginia, Heard was unable to get the suit dismissed.

Second, the location would become relevant to how sympathetic the characters of Depp or Heard appear before whoever would decide who was telling the truth in a “he said, she said” trial.

JUDGE VS JURY

In the UK, the case was decided by London High Court judge Andrew Nichol. A judge is considered to be better able to disassociate themselves and be less swayed by emotional arguments.

In the US, it was decided by a jury of five men and two women, who ruled unanimously in Depp’s favour.

The many faces of Amber Heard during testimony in the US. Picture: AFP.

The decision came down to whether the judge or jury believed Depp did, in fact, abuse Heard.

The US jury found that he did not, the UK judge argued in a 67,000-word judgment that The Sun had “shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true.”

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE

In the UK, the court did not hear evidence that contradicted Heard’s claims of donating her full $7 million divorce settlement to the ACLU. Her promise to donate the money added to her credibility, as Judge Nichol wrote in his judgment.

In the US, the explosive testimony of Heard revealed that she did not donate the money as promised, “yet”. Rather, she only donated $500,000 of her own money, with another $100,000 from Depp himself and a surprise $500,000 from her boyfriend at the time, Elon Musk.

THE STANDARD OF PROOF

The absence of that evidence helped Heard’s credibility in the UK, where a defendant has to prove their claims are true.

It is traditionally harder to win a defamatory suit in the US, where the plaintiff has to prove the statements are false and that they were made “with malice”, ie: Knowing they were false.

The win in the country with a higher bar came as a surprise as a jury in the US found zero acts of domestic abuse while a judge in the UK found 12 separate instances of “wife-beating” by Depp.

Johnny Depp gestures to spectators in court after closing arguments. Picture: AFP.

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE

In the UK, the trial was covered in the press but not publicly televised.

In the US, cameras in the courtroom live-streamed every salacious detail from the lives of the celebrity couple. It was endlessly discussed, lampooned and analysed.

While the jury was given instructions not to follow media coverage of the case or conduct their own research, they were not sequestered where they could be isolated from the blanket coverage of the trial.

As the trial was heard by a jury rather than a judge, as it had been in the UK, there is a higher risk of influence by public sentiment.

DEPP VS HEARD

In the UK, Heard was not on trial over whether her statements were true or false. While Heard testified, she was not named in the suit and the burden fell on The Sun to prove their statements were true.

In the US, Heard and her credibility were squarely in the eyes of the jury and the public.

While not an objective measure, Depp’s performance on the stand and his interactions with supporters outside the court gave more favourable airtime, on balance, than Heard.

Johnny Depp supporters, mostly women, outside the Fairfax County Circuit Courthouse in Fairfax, Virginia. Picture: AFP.

Originally published as EXPLAINED: Why Johnny Depp won in his defamation trial in the US after losing in the UK