What’s the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard Case About?

What’s the Johnny Depp / Amber Heard Case About?

Did you know that Johnny Depp has sued Amber Heard before? 🍋 Use code LEGALEAGLE16 for up to 16 FREE MEALS + 3 Surprise Gifts at Hello Fresh https://legaleagle.link/hellofresh

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Extended & ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! https://legaleagle.link/extras
👔 Suits by Indochino! https://legaleagle.link/indochino

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! https://legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! https://legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: https://legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: https://legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: https://legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: https://legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: https://legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: https://legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans https://legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon https://legaleagle.link/patreon

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (https://pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

You may also like...

49 Responses

  1. LegalEagle says:

    ⚖ Should I summarize the American case?
    🍋 Get 16 free meals with Hello Fresh using code LEGALEAGLE16 https://legaleagle.link/hellofresh

  2. FatherPaprika says:

    This case is about keeping yourself out of crazy. Man or woman, a toxic person in your life can tear you apart

    • Fafnirs Bane says:

      Especially a crazy woman!

    • Renafly says:

      @Cade Bradbury more like the value of physical evidence backing up his claims. Although I am curious as to why that evidence didn’t make its way to the UK court back in the day.

    • Renafly says:

      Easier said than done. Manipulative people are very good at presenting themselves as wonderful, down to earth human beings. Both Heard and Depp described each other as completely wonderful and perfect at the beginning of the relationship. Its hard to spot a toxic person when they don’t want you to know that they’re toxic. The toxicity comes out later on when exiting the relationship becomes harder and way more complicated.

    • ky-passley says:

      @Cade Bradbury I don’t think any one is calling Depp an angel it’s just that in this situation johnny come out the better.

    • a z says:

      @bkr_phon I live in a situation where crazy uses recording against me. I was asked to help troubleshoot the phone and saw all of these notes and recordings about me. It is insane how I am portrayed.

      I am a hard-working partner but in writing I am perceived as a guy who is wholly irresponsible. She literally sees me as a dude who goes to the bars after work and pisses away the family budget. I don’t drink and I work from home.

      Now when she starts to bait me with hateful comments I leave the room and guess what crazy says when I silently disengage? Crazy says, “you’re not going to talk to me??”

      To that question I will ask (the first time), “do you think what you just said was nice?” And crazy said “No”. But with no apology or sense that she was wrong.

      After 16 years I know this is a changing behavior pattern but I don’t bother wasting time on deconstructing the pattern.

      My point: crazy can be managed but you have to outsmart them….and know up front that any win is phyrric. Just know that crazy has mastered their chaos but you don’t have to bite.

  3. Karl Martin Thuseth says:

    I would seriously like hearing you live commenting on the case, as it is on going. It would be quite interesting to hear your take on how both Heard’s and Depp’s lawyers handle this case.

    • Thrashing Putz says:

      @Cleretic Fair enough.

    • Cleretic says:

      ​@Thrashing Putz I wouldn’t say that he’s ‘obviously in favor of Heard’ and more that he rather obviously thinks that Depp is going to lose this lawsuit in the same way that he lost the others.

      It is entirely possible that both Heard and Depp did terrible things and that it was a relationship with no innocent parties. But the case isn’t actually about that; the case is a defamation trial, where the argument is not ‘which of these two is at fault’ but rather ‘were the claims made specifically about Depp knowingly false’. This is a case Depp has lost twice, and it’s unlikely that he’s going to win it the third time.

      The guy’s a lawyer, he’s approaching this legally.

    • Thrashing Putz says:

      He’s obviously in favour of Heard, if the tone of the video was anything to go by.

    • Senne Bours says:

      Now this is an amazing idea 👌🏽

  4. Pathos says:

    While I’m sure Depp’s team wants to and is trying hard to win, I think in a way the legal outcome is irrelevant to an extent. The goal of the trial is to clear his name, and by virtue of making this trial public, they’ve ensured the people of the public – the ones with whom his reputation matters – have a chance to act as a jury themselves on the matter. As long as their case is compelling to the public, then whether or not Depp’s name is cleared by the court’s jury it will be in the public sphere anyway, accomplishing the goal they’ve set out to accomplish. So while I do think Depp’s team wants to win, I think they are trying to win in the court of public opinion just as much as the literal court. If everyone wants to see him back in movies and boycotts everything Heard is in, he will have functionally won, whether or not he did formally.

    Personally I think he and his team have made the more compelling case thus far. There are a lot of perspectives and evidence being brought forward in this case that weren’t in the UK proceedings which frankly makes it feel like those weren’t thorough whatsoever. I find it telling that the “fecal matter in bed” was just dismissed by the UK judge because it doesn’t make sense as a vindictive strategy. This erroneously presumes that every other person is operating on the same rationale as the judge for what makes sense which is laughable. Something making sense to you is not necessary for it to have made sense to, justified by and done by someone else who is less rational and stable. That the UK judge couldn’t understand that undermines how seriously their ruling can be taken in the public sphere.

    • Violent Silence says:

      @wyred The US trial is more dependent upon intent. I’m curious about what would happen in a US defamation case where the truth was published maliciously, as it would breach the actual malice criteria by that point.

    • wyred says:

      @Marcus Lee Also the UK trail was against a Newspaper and not against Amber Heard. If the paper had sources that backed them (true or false) they can publish it and defamation wouldn’t work in most jurisdictions. But if Amber Heard herself states this facts it’s a different story.

    • S says:

      @Marcus Lee Your comment helps one to understand the difference in how law works in the UK.

    • Marcus Lee says:

      Hi, just wanted to clarify on what was stated regarding the UK judge’s decision. I have not studied the law on defamation yet but I do believe that the law of tort practiced there has an inbred focus on the objective test of a reasonable person (an average joe who you randomly pick from the streets). The key note here is that it will be based off on an objective test and circumstances of a person’s character will likely not be put into consideration beyond the circumstances that they are in. As such, under the eyes of UK law, the trial judge’s judgment would likely not have been considered erroneous in that sense as a reasonable person that you pick up from the streets is not very likely to assume that the fecal matter in the bed was from a person, especially if the house has a pet.

      Yeah just wanted to say that. Don’t really know why or what purpose this message is meant to achieve. Eh.

    • Clark P says:

      @BenAffleckisAnOkayActor SURE, with Nypost, reuter and the sun and various media trying to help AH.

  5. Tony Man says:

    I’m surprised that no one in this case has said “What we’ve got is hearsay and conjecture… those are KINDS of evidence.”

  6. TheCommonS3Nse says:

    I’ve gotta say, after hearing the phone calls where Heard is extremely demeaning and abusive towards Depp, it really does support his case. I have dealt with numerous domestic violence cases and there is typically a primary aggressor. Sometimes you get two crazy parties that just brawl it out, but most times there is one party that clearly pushes the conflicts into abusive territory. The tone, aggression, vitriol and choice of language by Heard in those recordings is all typical of a primary aggressor. That obviously doesn’t prove anything one way or another in a court situation, but in the court of public opinion it goes a long way. Anyone that is familiar with domestic violence will immediately identify Heard as the primary aggressor and will judge the case accordingly, regardless of the verdict.

    And before I get accused of dismissing Heard’s side because she is a female, I am fully on board with the understanding that in a majority of cases, the primary aggressor is the male. We can all acknowledge that fact while still recognizing that this is not a one way street and women can and do act as the primary aggressor as well.

    • CameoCosplay says:

      @DaShiku Brandeis Domestic Violence is not ok. It doesn’t matter who started it, neither should engage it. Mutual abuse is abuse. The attitude should not be well it’s not abuse cause she started it and did it first so she deserved it. They should have gotten out of the relationship and gotten help and we should recognize that DV is not ok no matter who started it.

    • Steve Steves says:

      @Rose Harvey Because sexual abuse still falls under domestic abuse, but it’s not relevant in the sense that her defense doesn’t specifically have to substantiate those claims. I think they chose to address domestic abuse instead of sexual abuse because there’s plenty of evidence that Depp was actually the victim of domestic abuse, not Heard, whereas there’s no evidence that Depp perpetrated sexual abuse, and there’s no evidence that Heard was the victim of sexual abuse, so that case would have went no where.

    • Rose Harvey says:

      @Bobby Alexander based on heard telling lies about her being a victim of DV

    • Rose Harvey says:

      @Steve Steves I wonder who she has gone into so much detail of SA if she doesn’t think it is relevant. That after all was the charge in the op-ed title.

  7. Sue says:

    So, to be clear, the first lawsuit was NOT vs Amber Heard. She was a witness, not a defendant.

    • Mathew Poole says:

      Correct. He died the Sun for publication of a false article, not for making false allegations

    • Bobby Alexander says:

      @S C legally, the allegations were proven to be substantially true, it’s not an opinion piece for either you or I. The appeal went to judges not involved in the case and the verdict was still found to be appropriate. So do we just pretend a verdict never happened because it doesn’t suit our agenda?

    • Ghost De Razgriz says:

      @luke pearson No he said he “sued basically for the SAME THING twice” (defamation by Amber Heard)
      Not that he sued Amber Heard twice.
      Pay attention.

  8. benD'anon fawkes says:

    “I endured excessive emotional, verbal and physical abuse from Johnny, which has included angry, hostile, humiliating and
    threatening assaults to me WHENEVER I QUESTIONED HIS AUTHORITY OR DISAGREED WITH HIM.”

    all of the recordings presented during the trial have been to the contrary.

  9. Clara -「AshieOutlet」 says:

    I appreciate you keeping this video fairly neutral. The number of random people on the internet who are suddenly law, behavioral, and body language experts while watching this trial is insanity. It’s nice to see a video just talking about the facts and law procedure.

    • K A Lamm says:

      I am not a “supporter” of either of these people. However, I am so disturbed that so many people are passionately defending a man they do not know. The treatment Amber has received over this op ed is disgusting.

    • Daniel DaPonte says:

      I like the way you respectfully worded your compliment about this video.

      On a different note, since you expressed discomfort with with bias and with people’s reactions to the case, I wonder if you have a generally opposing viewpoint? Do you defend Amber Heard? If so, I am sincerely curious to hear your perspective and your reasoning.

  10. DatMasterHunts says:

    I know this is probably beat to death already, but I think this is good on the case that men also get DV as well. This includes what Mr. Depp got in return and that was nothing short of getting attacked and shamed even though a lot of Heard’s claims are false.

    • Gabrielle Duplessis says:

      The part that confused me is his history of drug addiction which I am glad he admitted to, but that can make you lash out and act violently so I can believe that.
      He may not be abusive without drugs, but drugs and alcohol can do the other.

      However, I do agree that it could be “the girl on the train” kind of situation where he is being gaslit into thinking it was his fault when it wasn’t.

      I also agree with your statement of how this case may prove that men also get domestically abused. There were allegations of Naya Riveria from Glee abused her husband. Girls can be abusive too.

      Yes, women are not believed and that gets worse when some lie about abuse or sexual assault. But what gets me is the stupid comment that gets passed around like “men can’t be raped.” Men can’t be abused. That is not true and like women, very few want to report it knowing that stigma.
      There is (to me) a new double standard that needs to stop.

    • Ghost De Razgriz says:

      @Dog God I agree with you, this is a big claim to make, and it would be stupid to believe it just because they say a few stats, but you cannot reasonably expect people to back up their claims. It may have been years since they heard the claim, they may not have updated data on the claim or keep a record of the citation when they heard it.

      The burden of believing and trusting others is on the audience, not the speaker.

      To be responsible with information is to find the truth, not demand (or in your case, politely request) the people talking do it on our behalf.

    • Dog God says:

      @Rhov Anion Do you have a peer-reviewed source for your domestic violence statistics and claims, out of curiosity? This isn’t a denial that the claim is true, I just see this bad habit of people making claims on the internet and others repeating the claims without actually verifying the information. For example, I see the “60% of lesbian relationships are abusive” statistic quite a lot, with the percentage varying wildly each time; however, after a bit of research, this is a misleading statistic. Every study done on homosexual domestic violence has had a sample size too small to draw accurate conclusions, and each study varies in results; some say that homosexual domestic violence is the same rate as heterosexual, and some say that it is greater in homosexual relationships. No definitive conclusion has been drawn yet, only sensationalist and inaccurate headlines.

    • Rhov Anion says:

      DV is split 50/50 between males and females being the abuser, but one has to take into account that men are socially discouraged from reporting it, with police tell them to “man up” and a little verbal abuse should be tolerable to a man. Women tend to be more emotionally and verbally abusive (belittling, humiliating, gaslighting, etc.) men tend to be more physically abusive. While physically abusive men tend to be more likely to use fists and feet to hit their partner, physically abusive women usually rely on blunt objects and firearms, with the results that women are much more likely to murder their partner. Sadly, the highest rate of DV is between lesbians; almost 60% of lesbians have been in an abusive relationship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.