Law&Crime Sidebar - BONUS EPISODE: Depp v. Heard Juror Question Explained

Episode Date: June 1, 2022

Law&Crime’s Angenette Levy outlines (from outside the courtroom) the question from the jurors in Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Tuesday about the headline of Heard’s Washington Post op-ed. The headline included the words “sexual violence. Judge Azcarate read the question and sent back the answer. The jury will also have to determine whether Heard republished the op-ed with actual malice by tweeting it with a comment.READ FULL TRIAL RECAPS:lawandcrime.comSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSee 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. View 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. Let me just read into the record, the question. A question from the jury about jury instructions in Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard. So what does it mean? I'm Ann Jeanette Levy and welcome to Law and Crime Sidebar podcast coming to you this week from Verdict Watch at the Fairfax County Courthouse. Deliberations ended Monday without a verdict. Just a quick recap. The jury deliberated for about two hours on Friday, then broke for the long holiday weekend, and then returned

at 9 a.m. Tuesday. The jury went home around 5 p.m. Eastern Time Tuesday, so including the lunch break, they've deliberated for a little less than 10 hours. But after lunch, the jury asked a question. We love questions during deliberations because we like to think we can get a signal of what the jury's thinking or what they're doing. Sometimes that's really not true. Sometimes it is. The question, though, was about the headline of the online version of Amber Hurd's Washington Post op-ed. Here's Judge Penny Escarati.

Basically, in regards to number C, items one and three, and number C is a jury instruction on the finding instruction for the online article. title. The question is, does question number three, the statement is false, pertain to the headline, I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath, or does it pertain to the content of the statement, everything written in the op-ed? So I think the confusion came in this particular one because the statement in question is the title of the op-ed. So I think they're just confused as whether it's the whole op-ed or just the title is the statement. And it's clear that the title is the statement. So I was going to answer to say, title is the statement in question for number three. Is that seem appropriate to everybody?

So that was it. Judge Ask Karate sent the answer back to the jurors. Many of us thought this was interesting because it appeared the jury was looking at the sexual violence statement in the headline. Remember, Amber Hurd did not write the headline. However, she tweeted the online version of the story with a comment about the op-ed. There is a jury instruction that is entitled re-publication, and that instruction states, in order to find that Ms. Heard republished the original op-ed, including the headline through a tweet on December 19, 2018, you must find that she retransmitted the defamatory material or redistributed the material with the goal of reaching a new audience. Stated differently, republication occurs when the speaker has affirmatively reiterated the statement,

A hyperlink directing readers to a previous article on the same website does not direct the previous article to a new audience. Merely linking to an article does not amount to republication, but adding content to a linked article may constitute republication. You must determine whether any added content was intended to reach a new audience. If you find any content added to the hyperlink was intended to reach a new audience, it constitutes a republication. Further, if you find a republication occurred on December 19th, 2018, then in order to find for Mr. Depp against Ms. Heard, you must also find by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Heard made this republication with actual malice, meaning that she retransmitted it, republished it, so she would reach a new audience and that she made a statement that wasn't true and that she did this in an effort to hurt Johnny Depp. So that was the instruction for the headline. in the republication of the Washington Post op-ed. So I know that was a lot to take in, but I thought that it was important

that I read that to you so that you could understand it. So there you have it. The deliberations will resume Tuesday morning. We will have them covered for you. So stay tuned to the Law and Crime Trial Network YouTube channel. We've really appreciated everybody watching. We will be providing live coverage throughout deliberations. You can watch us all there.

Also, remember, you can find Law and Crime Sidebar on Apple, Google. Google, Spotify, YouTube, and wherever else you get your podcast. So thanks for listening. I'm Anjanette Levy, coming to you from the Fairfax County Courthouse in Virginia. We'll see you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.