Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp's Lawyer Thought Actor Would Go Off the Rails in Explosive Trial

Episode Date: January 10, 2025

Practically the entire world was watching when actor Johnny Depp took the stand in his defamation trial with ex Amber Heard. But there was concern about how Depp might come off on the stand. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses what was going on behind the scenes with Johnny Depp’s former attorney Ben Chew.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/lctakeover to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&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. 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. You may have been drunk in that video, correct? There's a possibility of that, yes, sir. You poured yourself a mega pint of red one. wine, correct? A megapint. Yeah. I poured myself a large glass of wine.

Right. I thought it necessary. Right. When Johnny Depp took the stand two years ago, I think it's fair to say the whole world was watching. But now, his lawyer, Ben Shue says in a new interview, the actor's use of humor was so important to the case, and he was afraid he might lose his temper while testifying. We're going to bring on Ben Chew himself to explain this new revelation in one of the most high-profile cases in years. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Who could forget when actor Johnny Depp took the stand in his defamation trial against his ex-wife, Amber Hurd? It was a major, major moment. What would he say? How would he act? Would the jury be convinced? And all those questions were answered back in 2022. This is a major, when Depp and Hurd went to trial. Pirates of the Caribbean star sued his ex-wife for defamation over a Washington Post op-ed piece that she authored in which she claimed she was the victim of domestic abuse implying at the hands of Johnny Depp. Hurd ended up countersuing Depp for comments that his attorney made presumably on his behalf calling Hurd's claims a hoax. Hurd ended up taking the stand, got highly emotional, recounted these alleged accounts where

she claimed she was sexually, verbally, physically abused by Johnny Depp. But Depp got on the stand, too. And he said, no, no, no, no, no. He was the victim that Hurd attacked him. So who to believe? Well, a lot of this came down arguably to how they testified. And you have to say, it seems Depp won out, right? I mean, the jury found Hurd had defamed Depp. Yes, they also found that he had defamed her, but really it was a win for Johnny Depp. And you speak to many legal analysts, commentators, everyone said he was so much better on the stand than Amber Heard. And while initially there was a ruling for her to pay $10 million. In the end, there was settlement.

She had to pay him $1 million. And then when you think of him on the stand, his humor played a role in that favorable decision. One of your good friends that you've taken drugs with before is Marilyn Manson, right? Yes, we've taken... We've drank together. We've...

We've had cocaine together maybe a couple of times. Pills, right? With Marilyn Manson? I once gave Marilyn Manson a pill so that he would stop talking so much. And then she writes, My throat is yours.

You're going to be a the death of me, but I don't care. And then you write, I have other uses for your throat, which do not include injury. I have other uses for your throat, which do not include injury. Sorry, could you read that again? Rocky's boyfriend, who was some sort of chef, told, He asked her what she would like for him to cook. That's hearsay, I guess. And we know that his humor played a role

because Depp's attorney, Ben Chu, friend of the show, we're going to bring him on in a second. He said so in a new interview on the A&E special Interrogation Raw Celebrity Under Oath. By the way, I have to thank Upside for sponsoring today's Law and Crime YouTube Takeover. They help make this episode possible. Now, Upside is awesome.

It is a free app that gives you cash back on gas, groceries, restaurants. It is super easy to use. You just claim an offer in the app. You pay as usual using your credit card. You get paid. This is actually real cashback that goes into your bank account. You can use upside of places like Shell, Exxon, 711, Chipotle.

Look here. I used it at this gas station. I got cash back. So to find out how much you can earn, you click the link in the description to download upside or you scan the QR code on screen. But make sure to use our promo code LC takeover because you'll get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon

on your first tank of gas. There was a concern that, Depp might lose his cool and get angry on the stand. And that's important because we all remember the accusations, right? Hurd had claimed that Depp had hit her multiple times, including punching in the head, screaming at her, cursing at her. And then the jury was even shown this recording of Depp that Hurd had secretly recorded. What happened?

Nothing happened this morning, you know what happened this morning, you know that? Were you in here? No. So there had nothing happened to you this morning. Yeah, you're right. I just woke up and you were so sweet and nice. We were not even fighting this morning. All I did was say sorry.

Did something happen to you? This morning? I don't think so. I don't think so. No. That's the thing. You want to see grades? Don't give it.

Crazy. Oh, you're crazy. Have you drunk this whole thing this morning? Oh, you got this in. You got this going? Oh, really? Yes. Really?

Really. See, you got a . Didn't it? You were smashing . Oh, fuck. Ass. So now let me bring in the man himself, Ben Shue, to explain what he meant about his client. Ben Shue, good to see you.

Thank you so much. Great to see you. So talk to me about what you meant about Depp's humor on the stand. Well, great to see you again, Jesse. Johnny has an irrepressible sense of humor, which exhibits itself even when. situation deals with serious subject matter as certainly the underlying issues in depth he heard was involved the most serious possible subject matter and what had been the destruction of his career but in the context of that serious subject matter he showed incredible sense of humor and

incredible sense of control one example jesse was uh one of Ms. Hurd's themes, they were trying to argue that he had an alcohol problem and that therefore, because he had an alcohol problem, he was necessarily violent. Putting aside the lack of causation there, he really turned that around. We didn't run from the fact that that Mr. Depp had used alcohol or drugs. We were the ones who informed the jury. And I think it really took away the sting of any substance issues, but Ms. Hurd's team didn't really adjust. And so at one point, Ben Rottenborn, who's a very gifted attorney, was cross-examining Mr. Depp, and he said, well, at this point in the video that we've just seen where you're slamming a cabinet,

you poured yourself a megapint of wine. And Johnny hesitated. He looked at the audience and said, megapint. I poured myself a large glass of wine. I felt it necessary. And at that moment, he really diffused any notion that he was somehow some out of control person who would do the kinds of things that he had been accused of. And it was he not the very experienced, very talented lawyer cross-examining him who had total control of the courtroom. And at that point, I felt, I had no idea whether we were going to win the case at that point, but I felt that he really had diffused that issue 100%. And he did it on his own. I don't remember, I was in the courtroom for almost the whole trial. I don't remember what the jury did. Were they,

I knew, you heard the laughter in the courtroom multiple times. Did the jury, was the jury laughing alongside? I don't remember. We did not dare to look too much at the jury. We didn't want to feel that we were intruding on them. I mean, yes, that we would surreptitiously glance over from time to time. I do remember hearing some laughter from our left. The jury was only about six feet away. As plaintiff's stable, we were closest to the jury. I did hear some laughing there. I think they laughed several times during his testimony at the right times when he was being funny. But we consciously tried not to look too much at the jury. One thing that Ms. Hur did during her direct, cross, and redirect was peer into the eyes of particular jurors.

And one of the jurors commented after the trial that he found it very disconcerting, that he didn't like, the fact that she was boring into him with her eyes. So it's kind of a balance, as you know. You watch your witnesses and clients to occasionally glance at the jury and explain things to them, but not spend too much time doing that. And we felt the same way as attorneys. We didn't want to intrude upon their deliberations, as it were. Did you poll the jury afterwards in terms of how they felt about Johnny Depp's, you know,

humor on the stand, how they thought he did on the stand? I don't remember if you did. We didn't. And that, in retrospect, was a missed opportunity. It was so frenetic, as you recall, having been there afterwards, that we did a brief press conference. There was a lot going on. And frankly, I was so exhausted. I just went home. And by coincidence, my mother and my sister happened to be there. So with my wife, it became a very quiet family celebration. I put on my pajamas. We had. some wine and we let the young folks, the young attorneys who really carried most of the water during the trial, we let them go out and have a big party. I thought it best that I wasn't there anyway. It was exhausting. We were all exhausted at the end of it. By the way, talking about his humor on the stand, is that something that was planned out before? Did you encourage him to do it? Or did he just do it on his own? And then what was the response from you guys afterwards?

did it on his own. I mean, he was very polite to us. He was very respectful. We went through the usual Q&A and practiced, but he, as he does with his scripts, he rewrote everything. So when it came out of Johnny's mouth, we were hearing it in his way for the first time. And I think for that reason, I think Jessica Myers, who conducted the direct examination of Johnny, really deserves enormous credit because she had to recalibrate some of her questions based on Johnny's answers, which is very hard to do, as you know, under the best of circumstances. But when you have a national and international audience looking at you, and wise commentators and lawyers like you, comment, on her every move, I think what she did in retrospect was extraordinary because she really

had to follow him wherever he was going. We knew he would be funny because he can't not be funny, but we had no idea. A lot of it was extemporaneous, particularly on the cross. And he came up with that on his own and he was masterful. But Ben, you mentioned opposing counsel. They weren't prepared for that. They weren't prepared for Johnny's personality, his humor. What are things they really could have done? Because, you know, humor doesn't work for every defendant on the stand or any plaintiff on the stand. It can be very, it can backfire. But how do you prepare for a client? How do you prepare for cross-examining somebody who's becoming very likable on the stand? It's difficult. And I think they did the best they could. I think in retrospect, what they should

have done early in his direct testimony was object on the grounds that many of his answers were very long. As you know, some people speak in paragraphs. Johnny speaks in pages. And I think they had some viable objections they could have made about non-responsiveness. Though even though on direct you generally, judges generally allow your witness to tell his or her story, there are a And I think that in retrospect, they should have objected more early on to prevent the long and discursive answers that ended up being quite compelling. I mean, Johnny's a wonderful story to tell her. They should have broken it up.

I think it might have broken his rhythm a little bit. It might have gotten under his skin a little bit because nobody likes to be interrupted. but I think, and I can't get inside their heads, I think the reason they did not do that was not a lack of aggression, but was because of what you just mentioned, I think that they were afraid that if they tried to break him up with objections,

the jury would resent them because the jury really wanted to hear him. And the longer it went on, the more difficult it was for Ms. Hurd's team to interrupt. I think once it started, that train was rolling. It's kind of a good segue into the other part of your interview on this A&E special, where you said that you were concerned that Johnny Depp might lose his temper on the stand. Talk to us about that. Well, we were all concerned that Johnny might lose his temper. I mean,

imagine how any of us would feel to be accused of physical abuse. And then two years after being accused of that, all of a sudden being accused of sexual abuse. as well. These are accusations which destroyed his career, destroyed his life, put yourself in his shoes about the anger all of us would feel. So that was something that we were concerned naturally would come up, that despite his good nature and despite his sense of humor, he was, as anybody would be very upset that these allegations would be made. So yes, we were also concerned. because Ms. Hurd's counsel were very talented, that they would try to come up with ways to get him to show the anger that might make the jury believe that he was capable of these

heinous acts that Ms. Hurd accused him of doing. So there were times when we were on the edge of our seat. But to his great credit, he maintained control and whatever anger he may have felt he kept inside of him and he kept his cool. Was there a particular moment or element of cross-examination that you thought, uh-oh? Not any particular. It wasn't necessarily the ones you and I might think, but there were times since I know him pretty well, I could tell by his facial expressions that he was getting perturbed.

On those few times, for example, when they did try to interrupt him or make fun of of him, I think there were times when he was verging on it, but he never crossed the line into anger. And he was, in fact, I think when he was more perturbed, he became more polite using Mr., you know, in reference to Ms. Herd's counsel, which I think was, yes, we instruct, we advise that he do that, but he naturally is a very respectful person. He's a, he's from the South, and he has some of those mannerisms and politeness, and I think it served him well. Did you ever do a mock cross-examination with him, and, you know, there were concerns about his temper there or anything like that?

We did. We did a mock cross-examination, and we used an attorney who was not part of our core team. We wanted it to be as unbridled to cross-examination. examination as possible and that if Mr. Depp became exercised about it, at least he wouldn't be resentful of his core team. So maybe that was cowardly on our part, but it worked very well. And in fact, the cross-examination, the mock cross was harder and harsher than the actual cross-examination. And Johnny being Johnny, he actually didn't take offense against the person who was conducting it. Wow. So important to do that, especially in a case like this.

Now, I want to just ask you one more question about this because People Magazine reported that none of Herds lawyers participated in the A&E special that you participated in. And one of those lawyers, Elaine Charleston-Breda-Hoff, told people earlier this year that it was a huge mistake to allow the trial to be televised, that social media completely hijacked that trial. You should never have cameras in a courtroom for sexual assault or domestic violence. I hope that the rest of the world has figured that out and that mistake

won't be repeated. What are your thoughts on that statement and what are your thoughts on the fact that they didn't participate in the same special that you did? I disagree with Elaine, who I respect 100%. I think cameras in the courtroom are very important for society to see our judicial system in action, especially in an era when so many of our institutions are being doubted and are being, you know, under fire. I think the more the public gets to see the wheels of justice spin, the better it is. Because I think people will learn to have more respect for judges and the difficult role they face. And to the extent that there are any mistakes or shortcomings in the courtroom, I think having the public watch them and point them out

can improve everybody's performance, including the lawyers. So I think she's absolutely wrong. I do think that there might be some circumstances if you're dealing with minors and sexual abuse of minors and other certain things that I think everybody would agree should not be public. But I think the lion's share of trials should be televised. The public has a right to know.

So I think she's wrong on that. And I absolutely believe she's wrong about social media's impact on the depth be heard. I think the interviews conducted with the jurors make very clear that they were focusing on the evidence that was set forth at the trial itself. They were following Chief Judge Escarati's instruction not to look at social media. So I think that really is wrong. And to scapegoat social media is just not, you know, it's a poor. carpenter who blames her tools i think do you think that's a reason why she really hasn't participated in a further interview about this it's trying to put it to bed and you know i don't want to amplify

the the story anymore i don't know i mean because i think they were um i think miss bretahop was the first to come on to tv right after the verdict along with miss heard and um criticize the court and criticize the jury and criticize social media, that's why Camille Vasquez and I were instructed to go out and answer that. It wasn't originally our plan to say anything. We acted really in response to that. Yeah. Look, I couldn't agree with you more. Somebody who's in the media, the legal media landscape to have transparency in our courtrooms is a great thing. I think particularly because it could lead to misinformation, it could lead to speculation, it could lead to speculation what's happening. It's a good thing for people to watch the trial every bit of evidence,

every bit of direct examination, cross-examination. The only counter argument to that would be is, and I can't think of it in another case other than this one, the one danger I did see, and we particularly saw it because a lot of our clips on law and crime were taken, is that people would splice things together to make false narratives of what was happening in that courtroom. And that really bothered me because they would splice it together and make, whether it was your side or Amber Heard's side, look really bad. And it really wasn't accurate. It wasn't accurate about what the judge's ruling were, was. It wasn't accurate about how the cross, how the actual examination was going. And to see that, that's what led to

severe misinformation, which is why we really took the ability to try to counteract that and say, no, no, that's wrong. Let's explain what really happened. But that was the only, the only danger I saw was people, and particularly now if you're dealing with AI and things of that nature, but people taking clips and splicing them and creating false narratives of a very public trial. That was my, I don't know if you saw anything like that, but that was a problem. I completely agree with you. I think that is a downside, but I think on balance, I think the transparency is a good thing, but I totally agree with you. And we did see some of that. Yep, I agree with you. Ben Chu, thanks so much for coming on. Great seeing you and happy new year.

Great to see you. Happy New Year. Thank you. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.