Actor Johnny Depp has finally won his case against his ex-wife Amber Heard. The actress did “defame” him by accusing him of domestic violence against him, an American jury ruled on Wednesday. On the other hand, Johnny Depp is also guilty of defamation for having called these accusations a “set up”.
The Fairfax, Va. jury had a mandate to look into the harm caused to Mr. Depp by a text signed by the hand of Mme Heard published in 2018 in the Washington Post. The actress — who we saw on the big screen in Justice League (The Justice League) et Aquaman — did not explicitly name her ex-husband, but clearly referred to it. She then described herself as a “public figure representing domestic violence”.
A month after the publication of this text, Johnny Depp had decided to sue her for defamation by claiming 50 million dollars in damages, believing that this platform had ruined her reputation and her career. In response, Heard had filed a $100 million counterclaim while claiming to have been physically and sexually abused.
Ultimately, the jury did not believe any evidence of domestic violence filed by Camp Heard. The actress will therefore have to pay 15 million dollars to Johnny Depp, ie 10 million dollars in compensation and 5 million in punitive damages. On the other hand, the laws of Virginia cap the amount that can be paid in punitive damages at $350,000.
Show trial, scabrous story
The famous actor, however, has not been completely cleared by the courts. The seven jurors found that Mr Depp’s lawyer, Adam Waldman, had also made defamatory remarks by calling Amber Heard’s sexual abuse allegations a “set-up” in the newspaper Daily Mail in 2020. The actor is thus ordered to pay $ 2 million in damages to his ex-wife.
Ultimately, Amber Heard owes Johnny Depp $8,350,000.
The gossip press regaled themselves with this long (six weeks) high-profile trial, filmed from start to finish. The two protagonists are actors above all, and they have multiplied the staging and the murderous replies. Evidence provided by Heard’s attorneys has exposed intimate and sometimes sordid details of the tumultuous couple’s life. Images of violence, scatological anecdotes and drug use have dotted the story of the two ex-lovers.
This diversion of the merits of the case – defamation – towards a popularity contest can be seen by some as a distortion by the crosshairs of justice.
“We know that denouncing is complicated and perilous and exhausting. We know that public opinion tends to defend men in power first and foremost. And that these men of power have the means to defend themselves and they defend themselves, among other things, by discrediting the victim”, points out to the To have to feminist essayist Martine Delvaux. This conclusion to the advantage of the spouse also highlights that the backwash of the wave #MeToo is “permanent,” she argues.
The popular judgment, largely in favor of the “pirate of the Caribbean”, certainly weighed in the minds of the jury, and even more in the minds of the public, analyzes in turn the sociologist and specialist in violence against women Stéphanie Pache. “Once again, we managed to tarnish the image of someone who is very clearly a victim, if only in the media treatment. »
Johnny Depp had already attempted a similar legal adventure in England, a few years ago, against the tabloid The Sun, who had called him a “woman beater”, twice losing his case, she notes. “He is the one who systematically attacks and who is litigious. Popular sanction makes her the problem. That, unfortunately, is not unique. That’s how the social order is maintained: we don’t like troublemakers. »
This is what Amber Heard pointed out in a press release after the verdict was delivered. “I am devastated that the mountain of evidence was not sufficient to deal with the far superior power, influence and ascendancy of my ex-husband. I am even more disappointed by what this verdict means for other women. It’s a setback. This challenges the idea that violence against women should be taken seriously. »
The judgment, on the other hand, stipulates that the two lied, but in an unequal way.
With Agence France-Presse