Aquaman’s actor Amber heard submitted a notice of appeal of the defamation verdict awarded by the Virginia jury to her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.
After the jury determined on June 1 that she had slandered Depp by publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post, they immediately announced they would appeal, according to Variety. She was described as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.”
According to the verdict, the claim was untrue and made with “actual malice.”
Amber’s spokesperson said, “We believe the court made errors that a just and fair verdict consistent with the First Amendment.”
They further added, “We are therefore appealing the verdict. While we realise today’s filing will ignite the Twitter bonfires, there are steps we need to take to ensure both fairness and justice. “
The grounds for Heard’s appeal are not explicitly stated in the two-paragraph notice. In response, Depp’s agent stated that his side is still convinced that the ruling would stand. Her spokesperson stated, “We remain confident in our cause and that this judgement will stand.”
Due to a Virginia rule that caps punitive damages, the jury awarded Depp USD 15 million in damages, but Heard was required to pay USD 10.35 million as a result (the judge reduced the amount). Heard was granted USD 2 million in damages after she successfully argued one of the three defamation counts in her countersuit.
The celebrities’ defamation case had captivated social media, with fans of the ‘Pirate’ star praising Depp and criticising Heard for lying in her testimony. expressed
his gratitude to the jury in his Instagram,while Heard exhibited discontent.
“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It’s a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously, “Tweeted Amber.
Heard’s attorneys had earlier argued for the decision to be overturned before Judge Penney Azcarate for a number of reasons, including the claim that one of the jurors had attended the trial despite never having been summoned.