Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: "JUROR IMPERSONATOR?"

Episode Date: July 11, 2022

Amber Heard’s legal team claims a person not called to jury duty was inadvertently seated on the jury for Johnny Depp's defamation lawsuit, and that warrants a new trial.  At issue is juror number 15. Heard's legal team says a 52-year-old man responded to a jury summons and was seated on the jury, but the summons was for a 77-year-old man with the same last name living at the same address.     Joining Nancy Grace Today: Darryl Cohen - Former Assistant District Attorney, Fulton County, Georgia, Defense Attorney, Cohen, Cooper, Estep, & Allen, LLC, CCEAlaw.com  Caryn Stark - NYC Psychologist, CarynStark.com, Twitter: @carynpsych, Facebook: "Caryn Stark"  John Guard - Chief Deputy – Pitt County Sheriff’s Office (Greenville, NC), Specializes in Investigating Domestic Violence Cases Charlie Lankston - FeMail Editor, DailyMail.com, Twitter/Instagram:@charlielanks See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Does it never end with this woman? Amber Heard is back in the headlines, this time suggesting that a juror impersonated someone else, a juror that sat on the Depp-Heard trial. Long shot? Yeah. Possible?

Could there be a mistrial? Absolutely. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. First of all, take a listen to our friends at ABC. Amber Heard's legal team filing a motion for a mistrial in the defamation case between Heard and her ex-husband Johnny Depp. Heard's lawyers alleging that juror number 15 was illegally selected, writing juror number 15 was not the individual summoned for jury duty on April 11, 2022, and therefore is not part of the jury panel and could not have properly served on the jury at this trial. The request for a new trial is on the basis that juror 15 is 52 years old, born in 1970, while the person summoned living at the same address with the same name was born in 1945

and would have been 77 years old at the time of the trial. It's a very tough decision for the court to make on this motion. And it's hard to see how the fact that someone was 52 years old rather than 70 years old, how that would make a change or a difference in the ultimate verdict. Heard's attorneys writing in the motion, the 52-year-old sitting on the jury for six weeks did not appear in the list, adding, it is deeply troubling for an individual not summoned for jury duty nonetheless to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case such as this. Because their case is so much more special than the rest of our cases?

Okay, well, that's not going down very well. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. What the hey? You know what? Let's do a double take. Take a listen to our friends at Fox News. Amber Heard's legal team filing new documents in a Virginia court on Friday arguing that the person known as juror number 15 was not the person that was actually called to serve on jury duty. Heard's lawyer is saying that the person could not have properly served on the jury at this trial and their reasoning

for those claims is that the jury panel list included a 77 year old individual with a birth date in 1945 however they say a 52 year old individual who lives at the same address as the 77 year old was the person who actually showed up and ultimately served on the jury and because of this mistake that they're alleging Hurd's lawyers are saying her quote due process was therefore compromised and under these circumstances a mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered. So bottom line she's saying that this juror this male juror impersonated another person that was rightfully to be in the jury pool. We've got an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now, but first, straight

out to Charlie Langston. She's been on the case from the very beginning. She is an editor with the DailyMail.com of Female, F-E-M-A-I-L. Charlie, thank you so much for being with us. So much is happening even after we thought the case was over. What is this? I don't know that any of us thought the case was over just because they ruled a verdict. You know, it was very clear to me from the start that Amber was never going to take this

verdict lying down. And this, in my mind, is just the latest in an increasingly long line of attempts being made by her legal team to try and get the verdict thrown out. This new kind of claim being made by her attorneys is basically saying that one of the people who served on the jury, one of the people who sided with Johnny Depp, was never meant to be there in the first place. But the interesting thing to me is that her lawyers have not yet said or not yet made clear how on earth they found this information out. Now, we knew that the jury who served in this trial, they were all supposed to be silent, supposed to be quiet for at least a year after the trial. And as yet,

we have no clue exactly how Amber Heard's legal team stumbled upon this. But the kind of, you know, motion that they have filed to have this trial be ruled a mistrial comes just days after they also said that, you know, some of the evidence that was used in the trial does not support the verdict. I do think that, you know, she has grounds to try and appeal. I think, you know, I'm not a legal expert, but I'm sure that legal experts would agree that if you think you have an opportunity to get the verdict thrown out or to appeal the verdict, then you should do so. But it feels slightly to me at the moment moment like they're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that something will stick.

Charlie Langston, that was perfectly said. You are correct. Everyone that is either convicted or found to be liable at a civil trial has a right to appeal. That's part of our legal process. It's in the Bill of Rights where you have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer even if you can't pay for a lawyer. The state will appoint one and pay for one. You have the right to call witnesses. You have the right to cross-examine witnesses, if any brought by the other side. You have a right to an appeal. And if you cannot afford an appeal,

the state will also pay for an appeal for you. I mean, you know, Daryl Cohen, you know how I just like roll that off the tip of my tongue? You know why? Because in court, when you would take a guilty plea, you had to, on the record, well, you know, I practiced in front of Judge Alverson for so long, Daryl. We had to swear the defendants in that they were telling the truth. And then on the record, taken down by a court reporter, give them all of their rights. And the right to an appeal is one of those constitutional rights. I mean, of course she has the right to ask for a mistrial. I'd be just mad if she didn't. That doesn't mean anything that she's saying makes any sense. Well, I don't know if it makes sense or not, Nancy. If this 52-year-old was there, as opposed to a 77-year-old, then I think that the jury is tainted if that's the case. And I don't know where they came up with it.

But I'll say this as well. A 77-year-old will possibly look at this and hear this in a different way than a 52-year-old. Oh, okay. Sorry. But Daryl Cohen, I feel a moral obligation to just stop you right there because you have struck a lot of juries like I have, like other people on this panel have, and we all know that both sides get a big, fat, thick printout of information on the jurors. It clearly has your DOB on the printout. If they couldn't look at this guy and figure out there's a 25-year age difference,

that he clearly is not 77 years old, that's on them, Daryl. Uh-uh. You can't fail at trial, not notice that there is a clear error and not object to it, then bring it up on appeal. If you cause the error, Daryl, you cannot cite it on appeal as a grounds for reversal. I agree, Nancy. But did they know? I wasn't there. I didn't see the jury list.

I didn't see how well vetted they were. You don't think they could tell it's a 50-year-old man versus an 80-year-old man? 77, please. No, just answer that one question. I didn't ask you if you were there. I asked you if you believe they can't tell the difference in a 77-year-old man and a 52-year-old man, a 25-year age difference. Just as a yes-no. You don't think they can tell the difference?

Yes, they can tell the difference. That's all I wanted to hear. Because when I had those juror questionnaires. I have a right to explain my answer. We're not in court. The Constitution doesn't apply to you. Just FYI. My Constitution does.

It's mine. Go ahead, but make it brief for pete's sake the truth is they may not have known and sometimes things come up that are so obvious you don't see them until suddenly something happens and there it is suddenly you lose and you're desperately searching for grounds for appeal i think it's what you meant to say. How did this happen? I believe it's a father-son situation because the juror that came in at age 52, as opposed to the juror that was summoned age 77, both live at the same address. They both have the same zip code and they have the same last name. And they're both men.

It sounds like it's a senior and a junior. Take a listen now to our friends at Fox News. This is Charles Watson. Now the jurisdiction this motion was filed in Fairfax County, Virginia does have some safeguards in place to avoid something like this from happening. They require all county residents to log in with the seven digit juror number, zip code, and birthdate. But now there are questions about whether those safeguards were used or worked this time around to correctly verify the juror's identity. This new filing comes about a week after lawyers for Heard requested a judge to throw out a more than $10 million verdict awarded to her ex-husband actor Johnny Depp in a very public defamation trial. A jury found Heard defamed Depp and forced him to miss out on work opportunities

following a Washington Post op-ed in which Heard alleged she was a victim of domestic abuse. Now, legal experts say this is not a clear-cut argument for Heard. She's going to have to prove a couple of things. Number one, that this wasn't just an honest mistake. And number two, that this juror in question was somehow unfair to her. Yeah, you have to show actual prejudice or harm before you can get a I'm curious about what Charlie Langston said. She is the editor of Female at DailyMail.com. Charlie, you've been on the case

from the very beginning. You said it feels as if she's just throwing things out to see what, if anything, sticks. I mean, that's said it feels as if she's just throwing things out to see what if anything sticks i mean that's what it feels like to me and i you know i think it's very interesting the difference in behavior between her and johnny depp obviously we've discussed if she has the ability to appeal she absolutely should appeal But everything that has come out regarding Amber since the trial has been very negative. You know, we saw her do that Today Show interview

where she rehashed all of the allegations that she had made that got her in this situation in the first place. And yet, days after she was found guilty of defaming Johnny Depp, she's going on national television repeating those same defamatory claims against him. Then we've got all of this information coming out about a potential legal case that she's involved in in Australia regarding her smuggling her dogs into the country a few years ago and then lying about it. Then we've got claims that she might be writing a book. Then we've got news that her insurance company won't help her pay the defamatory charges that she has to give Johnny Depp. Meanwhile, Johnny, who arguably went into this case as something of a villain, has come out really with the most phenomenal redemption arc. He's doing music. He's going on tours of Europe.

He's donating enormous amounts of money. He's donating, you know, enormous amounts of money to children's hospitals around the world. He's supposedly going to be back on our screens in new movies and TV shows. It just, to me, really kind of lays it very bare when you look at the difference between the two of them. And for me, it seems very much like Johnny Depp is a man who wants to put this behind him, get on with his life. His attorneys have suggested that he won't even make Amber pay the money that she owes him. He just wants to move on. And she very much seems as though she's a bit of a dog with a bone who will not let this rest.

Well, if she keeps making comments about Depp, she'll probably end up getting sued again by Depp. Speaking of Amber Heard's interview with Savannah Guthrie, our friend at NBC that Charlie Langston just referred to, take a listen to our Cut 40. This is Amber Heard with Savannah Guthrie, our friend that I work with at Court TV, wonderful person at NBC. Take a listen. I never had to instigate it. I responded to it. When you're living in violence and it becomes normal, as I testified to, you have to adapt. You say you were responding, but there is evidence. There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting. There are tapes in which you say, I started the fight. I know much has been made of these audio tapes. They were first leaked online after being edited. What you

would hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening. It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk about that with your abuser. To John Gard, Chief Deputy, Pitt County Sheriff's Office in Greenville, North Carolina, specializing in domestic violence cases, John Gard, that doesn't even sound, that doesn't, what she just said doesn't even make sense. Because, as you well know, by getting evidence in at trial, if there is any suggestion that a tape or a video has been tampered with or edited, it is not allowed in trial. Right. Absolutely. And certainly through discovery, you would get the entire thing.

Not sure how that come about. Yeah, exactly. That whole thing. Charlie Langston with us from DailyMill.com. Those tapes were particularly damning for Amber Heard. And this is what Heard is telling Savannah Guthrie in their sit-down interview immediately after the trial. What was that about? Effectively, Savannah Guthrie was saying to Amber Heard, the jury and everyone in the courtroom heard these tapes on which you could be heard

making kind of violent suggestions towards Johnny Depp, saying horrible, awful things to him. And what Amber Heard is saying is that actually these tapes were hours and hours and hours long, and that the jury only heard a very small select portion of them. So she was suggesting that the evidence that was used in the trial was in some way tampered with, edited, whatever you want to say, in order to make her look worse. Now, again, my legal expertise is very much lacking in comparison with other brilliant people on this phone call. However, even I know that tampered evidence cannot be used in a courtroom, certainly not fairly. So if she's able to prove that, and if that is actually the case, that is yet another reason why she would be able to appeal the verdict. But once again,

she's made this claim, and we have no evidence to back it up. It's the same thing with these new claims about the fake juror. You know, we've heard that they think this is the case, but we, as yet, have no evidence to back it up or prove it in any way, shape, or form. So that's why I say it feels like her legal team is throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick, because they keep making these very sensational claims about why the trial needs to be declared a mistrial and why it needs to be redone. But we don't yet have any proof

to back up any of the claims that they're making. Another issue that Charlie Langston brought up rightfully are claims by Heard regarding the UK trial. This almost the same issue was tried in England, and there was a very different result. Long story short on that, it seems as if Amber Heard is claiming, wow, UK got it right, US messed it up, I want a mistrial. Take a listen to Hour Cut D. Again, this is Amber Heard speaking to our friend Savannah. There was another trial handled with the same, dealt with the same substantive issues that had even more evidence in.

In fact, my evidence was largely kept out, really important pieces of evidence kept out. Done differently, handled differently by a judge instead of a jury. Some evidence is admissible in a U.K. court that is not admissible in a US court. Do you think that maybe he just had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly a better job of distracting the jury from the real issues. Karen Stark joining me, a high-profile psychologist joining us from New York. You can find her at karenstark.com. That's Karen with a C.

Karen, it seems to be a suggestion by her that she wanted a judge to preside over the trial. It's referred to as a bench trial here because the bench is a way to refer to the judge. She seems to say a judge would have been better than a jury. Well, a jury is the American way. That's how it works here. A jury of your peers. Correct. And what she's saying, what she seems to be saying anyway, is that this jury was biased toward him and that if she had a judge the judge would be unbiased and would find her not guilty but it all sounds so desperate nancy she's really she's looking to be vindicated it's hard to believe that her legal team would think even that it was a good idea for her to go on with Savannah Guthrie because she does not come across as somebody who seems to be victimized.

She changes her story. She comes up with things that can't be validated. And that doesn't make her look any more believable than she did originally in court, in my opinion. You know, let's just put it to bed, Daryl Cohen, this latest claim that somehow she needs a mistrial because seemingly the son showed up as opposed to the father. Daryl, can we just do a lightning round? Daryl Cohen joining me, high profile lawyer out of the Atlanta jurisdiction, former prosecutor of felony crimes.

Darrell, isn't it true that on appeal, you have to show actual injury, harm, or prejudice before you get a mistrial? Absolutely. Okay. And she showed harm and prejudice. She lost. Isn't it also true that if there is an error at trial that you, the lawyer, could have remedied at trial, that will not be a grounds for reversal.

For instance, if you fail to lodge an objection to a problem at trial and then you complain about it for the first time on appeal, you're not getting a reversal. Absolutely correct, but that's if you knew or should have known. Absolutely. Also, in Virginia, which includes, of course, Fairfax County, the voter registration is what is used as the jury pool. That is similar across the country. They use real estate records.

They use voter registration. They use prior jury lists. So would you agree that anything that had happened, Darrell Cohen, unless there had been tampering by somebody in the courthouse, that this was a mistake, that the son, the younger juror, came with the same last name as the older juror. I mean, unless you want to think the county clerk has somehow tampered and thought they'd get a better result with a 50-year-old versus an 80-year-old, that's pretty

far-fetched. It's like the OJ conspiracy theory. That didn't happen. Nancy, I agree with you, but was the age of the juror on the jury sheet. That I don't know. They always have their DOBs, Daryl Cohen.

They always, every juror, print out. Don't you remember? There would be the name of the juror, their DOB, their address to make sure they still lived in your jurisdiction, Fulton County, because that's what's required of a juror, that you're impartial and that you live in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred. That's really all that's required. That's it, and they're the right age.

That should be the assumption to find her a lot more liable than Johnny. People keep referring to guilty as liable, and that is a possibility or maybe even a probability. The reality is a 52 year old may not look at it the same way a 77 year old does. And if the person was the wrong person, well, if it's the wrong person, then I think it's tainted, whether it's by design or by accident. So then wouldn't you agree that this juror, if in that jurisdiction you can only serve on a jury if you've been a convicted felon, if you have had your voter rights reinstated in two years after that, you can then sit on a jury. So unless this guy didn't live in the jurisdiction or was unfair or partial, then he is an appropriate member of the jury pool.

Wouldn't you agree with that? Yes, if he was the person called. Doesn't matter. If he was not the person. He's a suitable member for a jury pool. This happened to me once. I had a defense attorney. I can't remember which one it was now.

Come in all bluster, full of piss and vinegar, showing off in front of the jury, and blurts out at the beginning of voir dire, jury selection, I'll just take the first 12 right in front of the jury. In other words, no jury selection, no vetting, no nothing. Just take the first 12 that came in the courtroom. What could I do, Daryl? I couldn't say, no way, there could be a nut up there. I had to go along with it. I actually tried a case with the first 12 jurors that walked in the room out of 80 jurors. Can you believe that? That happened. There was a conviction, by the way. It worked for me, but it didn't work for him. So, I mean, I think you're acting as if this is some scientific formula.

It's not. You get 100 people in a courtroom, and you start asking them questions, and you ferret them out. Bam. If they all live in the jurisdiction, if they don't have a criminal history, if they say they can be fair and impartial, they're on the jury. If they're the people that are called. If it's the wrong person. I'm sorry, I don't believe that's part of the case law. I think you're wrong.

I believe it is. We'll just see, Daryl Cohen. It's a big if. Of course, that's not the first time I've said that to Daryl Cohen. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. That's not all that's happening right now. Charlie Langston gave us a little hint about more to come. Take a listen to Our Cut 79, our friends at Crime Online.

Reports that Amber Heard may be releasing a tell-all book have been circling for weeks. Radar Online is reporting that Heard is working on a multi-million dollar book deal following her recent legal battles. OK Magazine says the release will be a gut-spilling revenge memoir. Rader also suggests that the payday is around $15 million, but could be more if a bidding war breaks out. However, confirmation of a book deal has not been made. Did I just hear the words Charlie Langston joining me from DailyMail.com, quote, gut-spilling revenge memoir? Did I hear that correctly? Yes, you did. And honestly, she's going to get sued again. Exactly. If we thought that the NBC interview was bad, imagine that, you know, over 500 pages, it's going to be an absolute disaster. And I,

you know, I really do believe, look, I understand that she doesn't want to kind of go down without a fight, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say that you want to follow strict judicial process and that you want everything to be by the book and above board and the jury selection needs to have been verified and all of that kind of stuff. But then on the other hand, having just, you know, been found guilty of defamation, you can't then go on TV and repeat these defamatory allegations. You can't then pen a gut-spilling revenge memoir, once again, rehashing all of these defamatory allegations. You have to play the game one way or another. And at the moment, she's trying to do both things. And it is just portraying her in the most negative light. And while I understand that the court of public opinion is not the one that rules in, you know, in the courtroom, it certainly is going to impact her in the future. And no matter what happens with her appeal process, with her request for a

mistrial, this kind of behavior is going to destroy her career for, in my opinion, the rest of her life. I do not believe that anyone will hire her to be in a movie again, to be in a TV show again, whether or not this ends up being ruled a mistrial or whether or not she's granted an appeal. Her reputation at this point is destroyed to beyond any hope of, you know, kind of improving it ever again, in my opinion. Boy, do I disagree there. Jump in. You're more than welcome. I just completely disagree. The more grief she gives, the more people want to see her, the more she's going to get a film, two or ten, because they want to see this evil Amber Heard. It's all about the box, Charlie.

It has nothing to do with the reality of life. You know, Daryl Cohen, you're functioning under the, I think it was the Barnum-Bailey theory of PR. I don't care what you say about me. Absolutely. Just talk about me. So, yeah, I hear that school of thought. To John Gard, Chief Deputy County Sheriff's Office in Greenville, North Carolina,

you, like I, have represented battered women your whole life, your whole career. You have specialized in investigating domestic violence cases. I prosecuted almost, gosh, 100% of the time a male perpetrating on a female in domestic abuse or domestic homicide, as it is coined, and worked the hotline, the Batter Women's Center hotline, at night for nine years as a volunteer. John Gard, what happened to Amber Heard's case? Because typically you don't have pictures of bruises. You don't have any kind of corroboration. It's her word against his word or maybe a cop that shows up on the scene. What went wrong in what was seemingly a slam dunk case for Amber Heard?

Because, buddy, it went sideways. I'm not sure. Absolutely some things may have fallen through the cracks as you're going through. This is why I say I'm just blessed to be in the criminal side of the courts where we deal with guilt and innocence versus liable or not liable. But having law enforcement involved and being able to bring an impartial group of individuals who have actually done the investigation certainly would help. That's why, just like you, we always encourage people to reach out for help.

And one of those reasons is you're bringing in impartial people into the cycle, into the loop that can, you know, grab information that could be potentially later used as evidence. But we didn't really have that here. I know there was a call. Well, hold on. Charlie Langston, join me from DailyMail.com. As I recall, several cops showed up to Heard and Depp's apartment on one of these incidents. And I believe they testified they did not see any signs of battering on Amber Heard. That is correct. Multiple people,

including these police officers, testified to say that they never saw any evidence of bruising or anything like that on Amber Heard, and that all of the injuries that she was seen, you know, displaying when she went to the courtroom to get a restraining order against him, that that was actually the only instance where she was ever seen with any evidence of physical violence towards her. And that was tainted. I believe Karen Stark, that was tainted because evidence came in from a producer at TMZ that either she or someone in her camp had tipped them off to come to the courthouse when she was going to get a TRO against Johnny Depp and that she would be standing in the doorway and she would turn her face a certain way so they

could get a picture of the bruise. So bruise or no bruise, that tainted the entire episode, Karen. Well, Nancy, as you keep saying, the whole thing, it doesn't make any sense to me that she would even want to appeal because she's coming across as somebody who is, you know, she's not authentic. She's not believable. She's not somebody that people are going to care about. And the more that she's doing this, the worse that she's looking to the public anyway, to the court of public opinion, as we keep talking about. So I don't know the legal aspect of whether she can get another trial, but she's not looking sympathetic. Well, I would expect her to appeal because everyone that is either convicted or held liable in a civil trial like here, they always appeal. That's the first thing they start.

And no matter how great lawyers may be at trial, when you're sitting behind bars or you're looking at a $10 million bill you've got to pay in civil court, you'll do anything. You're like a drowning rat and of course will ultimately turn on your lawyers that stood by you in court and claim they were ineffective that always happens but karen start you said i don't know why she would do this because it's hurting her in the court of public opinion i've got a pretty good idea of why she's doing it. Take a listen to our cut 81, our friends at Crime Online. TMZ reports that Amber Heard's latest battle is with her insurance company. The Aquaman actress reportedly wants to use a $1 million liability policy with New York, Maine and General Insurance Company, which covers

defamation and other forms of wrongdoing. but the insurance company does not want to pay. TMZ reports the insurance company claims that according to California law, they don't have to pay because Heard committed a willful and malicious act of misconduct by defaming the Pirates of the Caribbean actor. New York, Maine is asking for a ruling from the judge saying just that. So bottom line, you've got two insurance companies fighting it out. One insurance company is demanding the other insurance company cough up the part they believe is owed to reinstate Amber Heard. Bottom line to reimburse her, pay for her attorneys. Right now, the insurance company is saying we're not paying because what she did the comments she made were intentional we don't cover that we'll cover if

you get a leak under your sink but we're not covering intentional defamatory comments what about it daryl i don't like what they're saying because if she testified as to the truth, and that's a very big if, then they have to cover her in my view. But if she lied, then that's a whole different story. If her story was the truth, then she didn't defame him. Well, clearly the jury didn't believe it. Absolutely, the jury didn't. They didn't believe it because of her body language. They didn't believe it because of the way she acted in court. They didn't believe it because of what she wore.

And finally, about two-thirds of the way through, she finally started dressing appropriately. Now she's back to the way she was. What are you talking about? What I'm talking about is body language. What I'm talking about is facial expressions. You're talking about clothes. It's about clothes.

It's about her face. It's about the way she carried herself. And juries look at that. And sometimes they really pay attention just to the evidence. But usually they want to see the defendant. They want to see the victim. They want to see the plaintiff. They want to see exactly what. They want to see the plaintiff. They want to see

exactly what's going on and feel it. And she gave an aura of being bad. And that's not good. But there also were a couple of instances where she was proven to have lied in giving evidence. She claimed that she had donated all of this money to the ACLU and then had to backtrack on the stand and said, oh no, actually, when I said that I had donated that money, what I actually meant was that I had pledged to donate the money over time. She also claimed that Johnny Depp threw Kate Moss down the stairs, only to then be incredibly embarrassed when Kate Moss herself gave incredible one and a half minute long testimony to say that that was not the case. And actually, she had fallen down and Johnny Depp had rushed her aid. Now, while I appreciate that that is

not necessarily Amber lying specifically about Johnny Depp abusing her, that is evidence that she lied in court. Well, that's not all that's happening in the Amber Heard, Johnny Depp front. Take a listen to our cut 83, our friends over at E. On June 27th, the report surfaced claiming the actor was working on a $301 million deal to reboot his iconic character, Captain Jack Sparrow, on screen. Four years after the actor parted ways with Disney, a source tells Pop Topic the company is, quote, very interested in patching up their relationship with Johnny Depp, adding, they are very hopeful that Johnny will forgive them and return to his iconic character.

But don't fly your skull and crossbones flag just yet, Sparrow fans. A rep for the actor tells NBC News of the report, this is made up. That's a far cry from what we heard from Johnny Depp himself at trial. Take a listen to Depp himself at trial. Take a listen to Depp on the stand. But it's odd that they were going to release me from my role as Captain Jack Sparrow, but yet kept me on every ride across the world. In the Pirates of the Caribbean rides, I'm in Los Angeles or the Hollywood or whatever it is, three or four times, Shanghai, I mean all over the world. So they didn't remove my character from the rides.

They didn't stop selling merchandise of Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't stop selling dolls of Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't stop selling anything. They just didn't want there to be something trailing behind me that they'd find. And you aren't aware, you said Pirate 6, in your view, is dangling. You're not aware of if or when Pirate 6 will be made, correct?

No, sir. And the fact is, Mr. Depp, if Disney came to you with $300 million and a million alpacas, nothing on this earth would get you to go back and work with Disney on a Pirates of the Caribbean film. That is true, Mr. Roddenborn.

You know what? I've got a very strong feeling, Charlie Langston, that if Disney asked Depp to be Jack Sparrow again, he would do it. What's the word, Charlie? I absolutely agree with you. And I think the truth of the matter is, you know, Johnny Depp was persona non grata in Hollywood for a number of years after all of this Amber Heard stuff came out. And I think that really what he wanted from this defamation trial was not to bankrupt Amber Heard. He didn't want her to give him $8 million. What he wanted was to restore his reputation so that he can be Hollywood great Johnny Depp again. comes begging and, you know, comes calling, he would absolutely do one of the movies, if anything, because it serves as, you know, the ultimate piece of evidence that Johnny Depp is

back and that he should never have been cast out of Hollywood in the first place and that his reputation is well and truly restored. Because if Disney is willing to work with him again after throwing him out of their movies, that sends a message to the world that they believe he is innocent. And you know, if the most magical place on earth is happy to back your character, then so should everyone else. What can you tell me about a debt project dealing with Louis XV? So he is rumored to be working on a new Netflix-backed feature film in which he will portray King Louis XV. It will be a French film. It's going to be his first French film. Obviously, he was married to a French model many years ago, Vanessa Paradis,

so he has a longstanding connection with France. And, you know, this is kind of one of those projects that could really throw him back into the mix of this generation's great kind of acting, you know, legends. And I think that that's what he wants to do. I think that he wants to get back to his first and foremost passion, and that is being in front of the cameras, portraying great movie roles. Amber Heard said it herself. He is a phenomenal actor. He is a brilliant actor. And that's what he wants to get back to doing.

Well, the word is, it has not been confirmed, that Netflix will stream Louis XV. I believe that the working title is La Favre, The Favourite. And that it will stream on Netflix 15 months after the French theatrical release of the movie. We'll see if that happens. Of course, everybody in America wants to know, will there be a Captain Jack Sparrow movie put out by Disney? But what I want to know is how this will all play out in a court of law. Will we ever really know after all the tape recordings, all the allegations, all the fighting, all the drinking, all the drugging, what really

happened? I don't like the fact that justice is turned on its head by how somebody appears on the stand or what they wear. I want to know what really happened and what is the truth. We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace Crime Story signing off. Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.