Saturday, December 3, 2022
HomeTrending Stories EnglishAmber Heard "Completely Not" In a position To Pay $10 Million In...

Amber Heard “Completely Not” In a position To Pay $10 Million In Damages: Lawyer

Heard’s lawyer mentioned the actress desires to attraction the decision and “has some glorious grounds for it.”


Actress is unable to pay her ex-husband greater than $10 million in damages, her lawyer mentioned Thursday, after a US jury took the facet of the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star in a bitter defamation trial.

The high-profile televised court docket battle ended Wednesday when a seven-person jury discovered that Depp and Heard had defamed one another, however weighed in way more strongly with Depp.

The jury, after a six-week trial that includes claims and counterclaims of home abuse, awarded him $10.35 million in damages, in distinction with $2 million awarded to Heard.

Requested on NBC’s TODAY present if Heard will have the ability to pay up, her legal professional Elaine Bredehoft mentioned: “Oh no, completely not.”

She added that the “Aquaman” star desires to attraction the decision and “has some glorious grounds for it.”

The 58-year-old Depp, who misplaced a libel case in opposition to the British tabloid The Solar in London in 2020 for calling him a “wife-beater,” celebrated the break up verdict within the case as a victory whereas Heard mentioned she was “heart-broken.”

Depp sued Heard over an op-ed she wrote for The Washington Publish in December 2018 during which she described herself as a “public determine representing home abuse.”

The Texas-born Heard didn’t identify Depp within the piece, however he sued her for implying he was a home abuser and sought $50 million in damages.

The 36-year-old Heard countersued for $100 million, saying she was defamed by statements made by Depp’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, who instructed the Each day Mail her abuse claims have been a “hoax.”

‘Horrible message’

Bredehoft mentioned Depp’s authorized crew labored to “demonize” Heard and suppressed essential proof within the trial, stopping the jurors from analyzing proof of Depp’s alleged abuse.

“Plenty of issues have been allowed on this court docket that ought to not have been allowed, and it prompted the jury to be confused,” she mentioned.

“We had an infinite quantity of proof that was suppressed on this case that was within the case,” she mentioned. “Within the UK case when it got here in, Amber received, Mr. Depp misplaced.”

The lawyer mentioned the ruling bodes unwell for the MeToo motion and can discourage girls from reporting sexual harassment and abuse.

“It is a horrible message,” Bredehoft mentioned. “It is a important setback, as a result of that is precisely what it means.

“Until you pull out your telephone and also you video your partner or your important different beating you, successfully you will not be believed.”

Bredehoft was requested by TODAY about Heard’s speedy response to the decision within the trial, which occurred in Fairfax County Circuit Court docket close to the US capital.

“One of many first issues she mentioned is that, ‘I’m so sorry to all these girls on the market,'” she mentioned. “This can be a setback for all girls in and outdoors the courtroom, and he or she feels the burden of that.”


In a press release, Heard mentioned “the frustration I really feel at this time is past phrases.

“I am heartbroken that the mountain of proof nonetheless was not sufficient to face as much as the disproportionate energy, affect, and sway of my ex-husband,” she mentioned.

For his half, Depp welcomed the decision, saying “The jury gave me my life again.”

“The perfect is but to come back and a brand new chapter has lastly begun,” Depp mentioned in a press release.

Bredehoft mentioned social media might have had an impression on the case though jurors had been instructed not to have a look at it.

“There isn’t any method they could not have been influenced by it, and it was horrible,” she mentioned. “It actually, actually was lopsided.”

Heard’s legal professional additionally mentioned she opposed having the trial televised.

“I used to be in opposition to cameras within the courtroom, and I went on file with that and had argued in opposition to it due to the delicate nature of this, nevertheless it made it a zoo,” she mentioned.

(Aside from the headline, this story has not been edited by IHNS employees and is printed from a syndicated feed.)



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Most Popular