After being found guilty of defamation of Johnny Depp and ordered to pay him $ 10 million in damages, Amber Heard found herself back to the wall. The actress and her lawyers therefore sought a way to turn the situation around. And they just might have found a lead.
A case that never ends. Since 2016, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard lead a merciless fight. While observers were convinced that the trial between the two actors would put an end to the discord, this is not the case. It must be said that the sanction which was announced against the heroin by Aquaman was particularly heavy. Found guilty of defamation of her ex-companionAmber Heard was ordered to pay her the sum of $10 million. Determined not to pay, the actress and her lawyers struggled to find a way out. And, according to the American media Deadlineit seems that they have found a rift in the jury team summoned to court in Fairfax.
“Ms. Heard was entitled to rely on the basic protection, as mandated by the Virginia Code, that jurors in this trial would be individuals who have actually been summoned to serve as jurors“, indicated a document filed by the legal team of Amber Heard this Friday, July 8, before denouncing: “In this case, it appears that Juror #15 was not, in fact, the same person than that appearing on the jury panel.” The lawyers’ filing then explained that two individuals residing at the same address and having “the same last name” would be involved in this misunderstanding. That’s why a 52-year-old jury member reportedly attended Fairfax court for six weeks, instead of the real juror summonedwho is 77 years old.
A new twist that calls everything into question
Obviously, the document filed by Amber Heard and her team of lawyers risks challenge the verdict. Especially since the plaintiffs insist on a procedural defectwhich could totally relaunch the trial. “As the Court no doubt agrees, it is deeply troubling that an individual who has not been summoned to serve on a jury should nevertheless show up for jury duty, especially in a case such as this. . This is a highly publicized casewhere the fact and date of the jury trial was widely publicized before and after the issuance of jury summonses. Virginia has legal provisions in place to ensure that the person summoned for jury duty is the person reporting for jury duty”, concluded the case. To be continued…
Article written in collaboration with 6Medias.
Photo credits: Backgrid UK/ Bestimage