Law&Crime Sidebar - Amber Heard Wants $10M Judgment Thrown Out

Episode Date: July 6, 2022

Amber Heard tries to toss out her verdict, even arguing one juror maybe shouldn't have been on the panel. Jesse Weber explains. Heard's legal issues don't stop there as the FBI is now assisting with a perjury investigaiton into the actress. Angenette Levy reports. Nathan's hot dog eating champ Joey Chestnut puts a protester in a chokehold in the middle of the famous competition, is he in trouble? Trial attorney and law and crime network host Bob Bianchi joins to discuss.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this podcast! Get 10% off on any purchase with code LAW10. Go to https://establishedtitles.com/LAW10 and help support the channel!LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael Deininger Guest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. The evidence will show you crystal clearly that the op-ed had nothing to do with damages that he suffered. He's going to try to make it sound like this caused him to lose Pirates of the which is a movie that hasn't been made, but that Disney wasn't going to cast a minute because of Inper's article. But there's no evidence of that. Amber Hurd tries to throw out the $10.35 million damages award against her from her trial with Johnny Depp, even arguing there was a problem with a juror. Will it work? But Hurd's legal issues don't stop there because now the FBI

is assisting with a perjury investigation into the actress. Sidebar host, And Jeanette Levy reports. Plus, it was the moment that went absolutely viral over the July 4th weekend. Hot Dog Eating champ Joey Chestnut is seen on tape choking out a protester in the middle of the Nathan's competition. But could he be in trouble? Trial attorney and Long Crime Network host Bob Bianchi joins the discuss. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. It's been over a month since the jury came back with their verdict in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven all the elements of defamation? Answer, yes. The jury ultimately finding that Hurd defamed Depp for three statements that she made in a 2018 Washington Post op-bed piece claiming she was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the Pirates of the Caribbean Star.

Well, now her attorneys are asking a Virginia court to, to throw out the jury's verdict, to throw out the jury's monetary award, calling it excessive. Now, you recall that the jury awarded debt $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, although that amount was reduced by law to $350,000 by Judge Penny Ascarati. So again, it's $10.35 million. Now, they make several arguments in this 43-page post-trial motion. I want to highlight a few of them first. Herd's team again rehashes an argument that they,

made in court, namely that Depp didn't suffer financial harm from the Washington Post piece. The evidence will show that he has not suffered one cent of damages from this op-ed, not one. Now, make no mistake, Johnny Depp's reputation is in tatters. His career is in freefall. But it's because of problems that he created. problems that he is responsible for. And he's here in court asking you to blame Amber for them. But it's not Amber's fault. In their filing, Hurd's team focuses on whether or not he lost the role of Jack Sparrow

in the Pirates franchise because of the op-ed. They say, quote, while Mr. Depp asserted he lost Pirate 6 because of the op-ed, there's no evidence upon which the jury can rely to reach such a conclusion. Mr. Depp did not have. have a contract for Pirate Six. There was media coverage that Mr. Depp would not be in Pirate Six as of October 25th, 2018, two months before the op-ed. Mr. Depp's agent testified that it was very likely Mr. Depp would not be in Pirate Six

as of the fall 2018. And Mr. Depp testified that he would not have agreed to play a role in Pirate Six for $300 million and a million alpacas. Now, this is important because for damages purposes, showing that connection between the defamation and the harm is critical. Second, Hurd argues that Depp is not entitled to the monetary award because he never proved actual malice. When you're trying to prove defamation with public figures like celebrities, there is this heightened

actual malice standard. So Depp needed to prove not only that the statement was false, but that either Heard knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Heard's lawyers in the filing say, quote, In this case, proving actual malice required showing that at the time the op-ed was published, Ms. Hurd did not believe she was abused or that she entertained serious doubt about whether she was abused. Because actual malice is a subjective standard, whether Ms. Hurd believes she was abused must be judged by her definition of abuse. Ms. Hurd testified unequivocally that Mr. Depp abused her physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Mr. Depp presented no evidence that Ms. Hurd does not believe abuse can be physical, emotional. or psychological. Now, that's a good argument, but let's not forget the verdict. Do you find that Mr. Depp has proven by clear and convincing evidence that misheard acted with actual malice? Answer, yes. All right, my lads and lasses, I want to tell you about something very special, cool, and unique. No, that's just not a Scottish accent. Wanted it to be. It sounds Irish, sounds Jamaican. That's not great. What is great, established titles. Now, Established Titles is a unique company, if you haven't heard about it. They allow you to purchase a parcel of land in Edelston, Scotland.

Even one square foot of dedicated land could be yours. You get the certificate, you get a unique plot number. Once you purchase the land, you become a lord or lady under Scottish costume. No joke. It's a great idea for people that you love. It's a great gift. Couples, you can actually buy adjoining pieces of land. But here's the thing that makes established titles truly special.

And that is that with every order, they plant a tree. They work with charities across the globe to support global reforestation efforts. It's a fun, novel way to preserve a picturesque woodlands. And I have to tell you right now, Established Titles is actually running a massive sale. Plus, if you use the code Law 10, L-AW-10, you get an additional 10% off. Establishtitles.com slash Law 10 to get your gifts now and help support the channel. Good day. The jury did find her acted with actual malice.

And in fact, as we've reported on a previous sidebar episode, one of the jurors spoke out to Good Morning America and said they didn't believe her that she showed crocodile tears. Quote, it didn't come across as believable. The jurors said it seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotion. She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later she would turn ice cold. It didn't seem natural. So again, the jury ultimately believed. that de-proved actual malice here. Now, there's one other major argument that is made in the piece, and this one is a bit curious.

I have to mention it. And that is where Heard alleges that one of the jurors maybe shouldn't have served on the jury at all. Heard's lawyers write, quote, on the juror panel list and the juror list panel sent to counsel before voir dire, the court noted that the individual who would later be a designated juror 15 had a birth year of 1945. juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945. Publicly available information demonstrates that he appears to have been born in 1970. This discrepancy raises the question whether juror 15 actually received a summons for jury duty and was properly vetted by the court to serve on the jury. Now, although incorrect information on a jury panel is not itself enough to get a mistrial or even a new trial on appeal, that's usually where it works.

this argument is saying something different. This is saying maybe that juror was not who they said they were or maybe wasn't properly identified and shouldn't have been on there. Hurd's team writes in the filing that this potentially caused Amber Hurd a situation where her due process was compromised. Now, there's been no response yet from Depp's attorneys, although based on a recent comment by Benjamin Chu, one of Johnny Depp's lawyers, this happened in the hearing on June 24th, where he indicated that Depp would respond to Heard's motions, we will most likely hear something

from them soon. Now, I just want to be clear, this is a post-trial motion, not an appeal to a higher court to get a new trial. Heard has until July 24, 2022 to file an appeal and also pay a suspension bond of $10.35 million plus 6% interest annually. This suspension bond prevents collection of the judge pending appeal. So there's still a lot of moving parts, and we'll see it goes next. Also, we have an update for you regarding a separate issue in the Depp Heard saga, and that's whether Amber Heard committed perjury. No, not in her Virginia trial, but in Australia. You see, back in 2015, when Heard visited Depp in Australia while he was filming Pirates of the Caribbean Five, she brought these two little dogs with her. And that was a big problem, because

the country has strict rules regarding biosecurity and how animals can be brought in. So Australian authorities demanded that the T-Cup Yorkies either be taken out of the country or euthanized. Now, it ended up where Depp actually sent the dogs back to the states. Heard was charged with illegally importing the dogs but pled guilty to a lesser charge of falsifying travel documents. And in fact, the couple posted an apology video. Australia is free of many pests and diseases that are commonplace around the world. That is why Australia has to have such strong biosecurity law.

Australians are just as unique, both warm and direct. When you disrespect Australian law, they will tell you firmly. I'm truly sorry that pistol and boo are not declared. But here's the issue. Heard is actually being investigated by Australian authorities for whether or not she lied during court proceedings on this matter. And now we can report that the FBI has jumped in to assist with the probe. Well, for more on this, let me bring in my sidebar co-host.

And Jeanette Levy, who's been following this story. She wrote a piece on it on longcrime.com, and she's even going to do a special bonus sidebar episode on this. And Jeanette, good to see you. Good to see you, Jesse. Thanks for having me. So let's just take a step back. What exactly is she being investigated about lying about?

Let's start there. Well, apparently during the court proceedings, she had made some statements about how this all came to be. And she had said that she had jet lag and sleep deprivation. according to the published reports, there aren't any videotapes, unfortunately available from this court proceeding. And then apparently she had cast some blame on Kate James, who you'll recall testified in the Depp Hurd defamation trial in Virginia. And at the time, Kate James was not working for Amber Heard anymore. But during the UK trial where Johnny Depp sued the son for liable, his former estate manager, Kevin Murphy, testified that Amber Heard, in his words, had pressured him to make false statements and actually wanted him to reach out to Kate James to get her in some way to take the

fall. She submitted a declaration during the UK proceeding. She was deeply offended because she is a native Australian and would never, she said, violate those laws. So it all comes down to what she said during that court proceeding where she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. And it's our understanding that the FBI is assisting with maybe reaching out to some of these witnesses because all of them live overseas, and that's according to a hearing that was held where this was addressed in Australia in the Senate last October. And speaking of the FBI, did we reach out to them? Did they have any comment about this whatsoever? What can you tell us? I reached out to the FBI. It was a holiday weekend, of course, and I made calls, several calls to the FBI media line trying to get through to them.

It kept hanging up, so I wasn't able to leave a message. I sent an email to the Public Affairs office, but typically it's been my experience over the years and it's FBI policy that they don't comment on active investigations. And certainly in this investigation, they are assisting. And I should mention apparently that this has been going on for quite some time. And possibly as long as a year, it's been a while that the FBI and the Department of Justice have been involved in this because the FBI falls under the auspices of the Department of Justice. So they were asked to assist some time ago. And so it would be great if we could get some official word for them, but I don't anticipate that. Typically, you just have to work through sources to get any

confirmation. Yeah, it's typical that you won't hear from an investigative authority in the middle of an investigation like this. Now, you did write a great piece up on longcrime.com, and you actually had the chance to speak to Bobby Chacon, who's somebody that we've had on the program before. We've had him on cyber before. He was an FBI special agent. Did he give any insight into what this can mean for Amber heard? Not really. He just said that the FBI has offices not only in Canberra, Australia, I hope I'm pronouncing that properly, but also in other parts of Australia, and they have offices around the world. And we have a strong relationship. We are allies with Australia. And so if their Australian federal police had asked us to assist with something,

and we know that the Australian federal police are involved in this investigation, they would have gone to the FBI and asked for that assistance. And Bobby said, of course, it would have been granted. And he said basically, assisting other countries in law enforcement matters is really a way for us to have one kind of foot in law enforcement and one in diplomacy. So these agencies work together around the world. And I should mention, too, during this hearing, when the officials with the, you know, agriculture department, they just changed their name. The agency that's actually investigating this through the AFP, they made it sound like they were working with bodies. They used that word plural bodies. So I don't know if there's more than one investigative. agency involved in this or not. If you watch part of, and I was trying to remember,

but I remember this distinctly, that during the cross-examination of Amber Hurd on rebuttal or on Amber Hurd's case in chief, I just can't recall. But I recall this vividly because I thought, oh my gosh, she's going to ask about the dogs. Elaine Brettahoff objected. They went up to the bench and then Judge Askirati must have said, no, no, we're not going there. Because obviously, if you recall, Amber Hurd had opened the door for her past arrest for which charges were later dropped for DV against her ex-partner. She had kind of opened the door with that whole Kate Moss thing to bringing that testimony in. And so I'm assuming they were trying to think, they were thinking, oh, well, we can go to the dogs now, but apparently not. It was a good try. It was definitely a good try

for another thing for the jury to consider. Yeah, did she lie in another court proceeding? And Jeanette, so I know you're going to do a special sidebar episode on this, laying it all out. Thanks so much for coming on and just giving us a quick update on this. Yeah, no problem. I'm glad to. Over now to a moment that has gone absolutely viral over the holiday weekend. You would think that a hot dog eating contest would just be fun in games. Well, not so because at the Nathan's famous 4th of July hot dog eating contest in Coney Island, New York, Joey Jaws Chestnut won his 15th win, 63 dogs,

buns in 10 minutes. But that was only after he got into a violent altercation with a protester. In videos that recorded the event during the contest, a masked animal rights protester wearing a Darth Vader mask and holding a sign that says exposed Smithfield's death star referencing Smithfield Foods that supplies the meat for Nathan's, this protester jumps on the stage and then chestnut without missing a beat can be seen throwing the guy in a chokehold and tossing him to the ground. And chestnut just keeps on eating as if nothing happened and then wins the title. Now, according to TMZ, police took three people into custody and charges are pending.

But what about chestnut? Could he be sued for this? Could he face any charges? Joining me now is former head prosecutor, trial attorney, and law and crime network host, Bob, great to see you. great to be on the show, Jesse. Great to see you too. Now, I mean, I could talk about the hot dog eating contest as much as well as the next person, but I do want to get a little bit into the law here. So I see this, right? And first, let's talk about any criminal charges. Anything here against Chestnut that you see,

I mean, was he defending the competition? Was he defending himself? Do you see any criminal liability for Joey Chestnut? No, Jesse, when I used to have to make these charging decisions as a prosecutor, I tried to use the rule of reason and not just work on technicalities. And I think citizens have gotten to the point right now where they feel like they can protest in any manner, way, shape, or form that makes them feel good without recognizing that this guy sees some, as far as he's concerned, I would imagine, a maniac charging towards him with a mask on. And you don't have to even hit him, literally. He's in fear of his life. He's getting into the hot dog eating guy's face.

And the guy reacts. And I used to look at those cases like, well, you know what? You don't come in here with clean hands. I have to prove a case beyond the reasonable doubt to 12 jurors that you committed a crime if I'm going to go in that route. And I'd never like to go after the guy who initiated the encounter, especially if there was not serious bodily injury or excessive force. And let's give the last point, it's a personal one. It's not necessarily a prosecutorial one. Any guy that can continue to eat, 63 hot dogs, why he's in the middle of throwing a chokehold, you got to have hashtag respect, Jess.

I mean, on social media, he's being hailed a hero right now. I mean, it's pretty incredible. He doesn't break a stride and he wins the competition. But, I mean, the use of the chokehold, I think that came out of left field. I don't think anybody was expecting such a swift move. It almost looked like he snapped the guy's neck. Now, luckily, that didn't happen. The use of that maneuver as opposed to pushing the guy away or hitting him, does that affect anything?

I've had a big problem with the use of this term chokehold for a long time, Jesse. I think that it's being used very loosely in terms of, did it cut off his air supply? Did it cut off his blood supply? it seems a bit from the video, it did none of those things. So we'll use the term, the fact that somebody puts their arm around somebody's neck and calls a chokehold is not necessarily straight out what a chokehold is. That said, putting your arm around somebody's neck is obviously much more serious and could cause more serious injury than if you punch somebody in the stomach.

And that's why a lot of times the prosecutorial decision is driven by the level of the injury that's actually created. Here being none to me does not make a difference. You know, when you're defending yourself, you know, again, it gets to a point where people are getting in your face, you respond because somebody happens to be a better fighter and winds up standing up. A lot of times they're called a defendant and the person on the ground is called the victim despite the fact that the victim is the one who provoked the whole event in the first place. I've never been a fan of that logic. And I think there's also something to be said, but the guy kind of nudged his way in there, right? I mean, if you want to talk about physical, it wasn't as if you just stood off the side and was yelling loudly and then put into a chokehold.

Much different situation. If somebody's yelling, screaming, protesting, then physical force is not appropriate. But he's moving towards him and nudging through the crowd. As you say, now, we don't know all the facts. I mean, from what I understand, he moved very quickly towards that level where somebody would be nervous. I mean, you don't have to wait until somebody actually assaults or kills you before you respond. Now let's talk about other than criminal liability, civil liability. Let's say the guy sues Joey Chestnut, says, hey, listen, I was exercising.

my First Amendment right to protest this. You had no right to put your hands on me. And I don't know what the guy's injuries are right now, if any, but what about a lawsuit? When you evaluate any civil lawsuit, of course, a different standard applies. It's usually by our preponderance of the evidence as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's a little bit easier. But the bottom line is you have to find some level of intentional assault or negligence. And you get right to the most important point. When I used to practice civil law, one of the first things you say is, and I used to use this example, if you're walking across the street and you get hit by a car and you pick yourself up and thrust yourself off, you go home, you have no injuries, that's not a good

civil case. The liability for the person that hit you may be 100%, but you're only allowed to be compensated for that in order to make up for the injury that you sustain. However, if you're walking across the street and somebody goes to a stop sign hits you and you break your leg or God forbid have more serious injuries, then your compensation is going to be higher from a practical point of view, a lawyer takes a case on, usually in a civil case for a percentage, and a percentage is zero is zero. So a lawyer is very keenly aware of whether or not there's significant damages in the case. That said, from a purest legal point of view, Jesse, if they just want to go forward with it, there's going to be an issue here as to whether

or not he was negligent, that is, the hot dog eating guy, or whether or not he felt he was defending himself. I just don't see this kind of civil suit I would take on as a lawyer. The only way I could see a lawyer taking it on is if they want to get some notoriety or some publicity. Well, if it makes into any courtroom, there's no shortage of video evidence and eyewitness evidence to what actually transpired between the two. Bob Bianchi, thank you so much for coming out to Sidebar. Appreciate it. Always great to see you, Jesse. Thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Make sure to subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.

binge all episodes of this long crime series. Add free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.