Law&Crime Sidebar - Unsealed Court Documents Reveal Amber Heard's 'Exotic Dancer' Past

Episode Date: August 1, 2022

Newly unsealed documents reveal evidence that the jury didn’t see in the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial….would it have made a difference? Could Amber Heard have won? Entertainment Attorney Tisha Morris explains. Plus, Browns Quarterback DeShaun Watson suspended, but is that really the end of the story? Profootballtalk.com founder Mike Florio joins us again to discuss.  And, Columbian singer Shakira is headed to trial in Spain over tax fraud charges…could she go to prison for years? Attorney Jonathan Handel gets into it. GUESTS:Tisha Morris, Entertainment Attorney Mike Florio, Profootballtalk.com founder, Author, and former LawyerJonathan Handel, Entertainment Attorney LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey 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. 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. We had an enormous amount of evidence that was suppressed in this case that was in the UK case. In the UK case when it came in, Amber won, Mr. Depp lost. Newly unsealed documents reveal evidence that the jury didn't see in the Johnny Depp Amber Hurd trial. Would it have made a difference? Could Amber heard of one? Entertainment attorney Tishamaris explains.

Plus, Brown's quarterback DeShon Watson suspended, but is that really the end of the story? Pro football talks, Mike Floreo, joins us again to discuss. And Colombian singer Shakira is headed to trial in Spain over tax fraud charges. Could she go to prison for years? attorney Jonathan Handel gets into it. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. You know, when looking back at the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial,

it is pretty clear that there was a lot of evidence for the jury to consider over the course of six weeks. And in the end, the jury came back and found Amber Heard liable for defaming Depp on each of the three statements that she made in a Washington Post op-ed piece. Now, they also came back and said that Depp defamed her, due to a statement that was made by his attorney. Depp was awarded $10.35 million,

Heard 2 million dollars. And since the verdict, Heard has tried to, but unsuccessfully, tried to get the verdict thrown out in a post-trial motion. Both sides are appealing the verdicts. But what an update we have for you right now, because over 6,000 documents have been unsealed in this case. Now, there are parts of these documents that talked about what Depp's side wanted to get excluded from trial, but ultimately were allowed in, like the testimony of Ellen

Barkin, the text messages with Paul Bettney, where Depp says that he wants to drown and burn Amber Hurd. But what we really want to get into right now is what the jury didn't see, what wasn't allowed during the course of this trial. So to get into this and help me sort through all of this, I'm joined by Entertainment Attorney Tisha Morris. Tisha. Thanks so much for coming on. Oh, thank you. All right. So let's get into it. There's a lot to get I'm going to go through the highlights here. Apparently, according to these documents, there was an effort on Depp's team

to introduce nude photographs of Amber Heard and also evidence that she worked as an exotic dancer, maybe even suggesting that she was an escort. So why do you think they wanted to introduce this and why do you think it wasn't ultimately allowed him? Well, they clearly wanted to paint a picture of who Amber, who they wanted Amber Heard to be. And the court ruled on those that they're irrelevant to the case at hand of defamation.

And I think, yeah, I think the judge ruled correctly in that particular instance in excluding those because they aren't relevant. But I think now we're seeing some of the stuff that Depp's attorneys want to introduce in seeing how, well, how they were really just kind of wanting to throw over in the bus, for lack of better words. Okay. Let's get into it. So let's talk relevant. I thought that this was relevant. I thought this would have been very relevant for the jury to hear. And that is the fact that there was apparently, let's go back to the, there was a plane incident where Depp allegedly kicked Amber Hurd on a plane. I believe it was in 2014. And Amber Hurd had testified about this. I feel this boot in my back. It just kicked me in the back. I felt the floor, I caught myself on the floor, and I just felt like I was looking at the floor of the plane felt like a long time. I thought to myself, I don't know what to do.

I can't believe he just did he just kick me? No one said anything. No one did anything. It was like you could hear a pin drop on that plane. You could feel the tension, No one did anything. And I just remember feeling so embarrassed. Felt so embarrassed that he could kick me to the ground in front of people.

And more embarrassing, I didn't know what to do about it. I got up and I just walked to the front of the plane. I sat down and I just looked out of the window. Jerry Judge's security and my friend, both kind of under their breath asked me, are you okay? Objection, hearsay. Well, there were texts from Johnny Depp's assistant, Stephen Duters, to Amber heard right when this happened.

And again, I'm going to read you one of the texts. Quote, if someone was truly honest with him about how bad it really was, he would be appalled. Again, this is what Duter's text had hurt. Quote, I'm sad he does not have a better way to really know the severity of his actions yesterday. Unfortunately for me, I remember them in full, in full detail, everything that happened. He was appalled when I told him he kicked you. He cried. Now, what we know Tisha that was introduced during the course of this trial is there was a text message from Depp to Amber Hurd where he seemingly apologized. He talks about being in a place of shame and regret. He doesn't outright say,

I'm sorry, I kicked you. But why was these text messages not introduced? I mean, this felt very pivotal for Amber Hurd's case. You know, and I think that's what's so interesting about these pretrial documents coming into light now is now we're kind of the, you know, the public is a second jury, a set of jurors and us making up our own decisions and seeing, you know, there was so much evidence in this case. And now we're seeing even more of the evidence. And in the pretrial hearings, they have to, you know, rule what is admissible, what isn't, just so that when we get to trial, we can, you know, speed things a lot.

long only have what's, you know, you know, essential for the trial, for the jurors to make up their mind. And yeah, there's some of these things that are really on the line of whether they should or shouldn't have been admissible. And so now I think we're seeing that. Do you think this was hearsay? Through the text messages. Yeah. I doubt they, I doubt they use that as a ruling basis of the ruling. I think that's a good argument. And perhaps what I don't think that was the basis of the ruling. Let me ask you this. If the jury saw these tax messages about, again,

and there was evidence presented by Amber Hurd's side that seemingly was to corroborate that she was abused. I mean, the jury even saw photos of her bruised face. Do you think if the jury saw these tax messages from Johnny Depp's assistant to Amber Hurd, it would have changed anything? You know, this case seemed to, I think most people would agree that it really swayed on people's public opinion, including the jury. of these two characters

and watched it as if it were a movie in a sense and really cited of who they thought was in some ways more likable perhaps obviously truth is actually what actually the case should come down to with defamation who was the most truthful and so I think honestly every bit of evidence

can be helpful for the jury to come to its conclusion on that so I think anything and everything these new documents have been presented do paint, you know, some different pictures of who these people are. All right. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that because there was a big theme during the course of the trial that Amber heard was a gold digger, that she lied about Johnny Depp to get a favorable

divorce settlement, that she lied about Depp in the Washington Post article to gain cloud or favorability in Hollywood. Well, according to these newly released documents, there may be evidence to show. the opposite. Because her lawyers at one point in time were pushing her to reconsider walking away from millions of dollars that she could have obtained from debt. They were looking at what he earned on the fifth Pirates of the Caribbean movie. And they said, well, what he earned could be considered community property. And you might be entitled to it as a form in the divorce. But apparently, Hurd had pushed back. And in a message from her attorneys to her, they say,

quote, amazingly true to your word that this is not about the money. Now, again, the judge wouldn't allow this message in, but that changes the narrative that she was only after the money. What do you think about that? I completely agree. It does, you know, we're seeing some new nuances around this trial that we're just now seeing. And I think all of this could play a part in her appeal of her post-trial motion to set aside

the verdict for a new trial. It's now on appeal. She lost the first round of it. But this new evidence, albeit the courts have already ruled that it's not admissible, but under a motion to set aside, these details matter, and they could add up for the appeals court to come to a different conclusion. Do you remember during the course of this trial when there was a Dr. Spiegel who testified he was Amber Hurd's expert psychiatrist. And, you know, he made some predictions and some opinions on Johnny Depp, even though he never actually evaluated Johnny Depp on his own.

Could you please just summarize for the jury the conclusions you came to with your opinions, and then we'll take you through the specifics? So, in my opinion, based on my review of the evidence, based on my clinical experience, based on my publishing experience, based on my teaching experience, that Mr. Depp has behaviors that are consistent with both someone who has a substance use disorder as well as consistent behaviors for someone who's a perpetrative intimate partner violence. Well, what we have learned is that, and again, in this unsealed motion, that Johnny Depp's team opposed a mental examination by Dr. Spiegel.

They said that Johnny Depp's mental health is not a factor in this case. They said because Mr. Depp is not alleging harm based on a specific physical or mental injury. That's why he never had to submit himself to a mental evaluation, unlike Amber Heard. Seemed like that made sense, right? It seemed like that was a good argument for his side, so he didn't have to be examined by the psychiatrist. Right. It definitely was a favorable ruling for him. and, you know, technically because this case is around defamation, which comes down to the truth,

but there's also, you know, because they are public figures, there's an element of whether malice was at hand with regards to damages. And so, you know, I think you could make a good argument that the mental health could play a role in how malicious someone wants to be. So, you know, I think there's definitely a good argument on both sides to that. Let me also ask you about this. There was apparently Depp was fighting and ultimately won to keep out this evidence that there was this online bot campaign to go after Amber Heard. The reason I find this interesting is I actually interviewed an Amber Heard supporter outside of court to talk about this. So let me ask you a question.

Do you think Johnny Depp this lawsuit that he's filed against Amber Heard saying that, you know, she falsely claimed he was an abuser in the Washington Post article. So what is your thoughts on him bringing this lawsuit against her? Well, I think he's doing it in correlation with the online social media operations to destroy her. So, you know, he's smiling a lot and gloating. And even though everyone said that he'll probably lose the case like he did in the UK, but in the end, he did destroy her. And so the idea that the jury wasn't introduced to this evidence that there was these bots, these trolls online that were going after Amber Hurd. what did you make of that? I'm guessing the judge found that inadmissible

because perhaps the evidence of it being true or not perhaps wasn't all there. But I think, again, you know, this was such a public case and public opinion was so important, even though the jurors was supposed to be, you know, not listening to the news. But let's be honest, I mean, these are, you know, two celebrity actors who, who know how to play a part. And they, you know, Johnny Depp,

I think, won public opinion. And now this evidence we're seeing, we're seeing some new size of, you know, of at least his attorneys, maybe not him, but the attorneys and their strategy. And they clearly went in the pretrial stage of this, of this trial, with getting so much of this not admitted into the trial. So, you know, so definitely Depp's attorneys won on the pre-trial game. And during the trial game, perhaps Amber will win in the post-trial game. We'll see. Well, let me ask you, everything that we're learning now in these unsealed documents, A, do you think it's going to change the public's opinion on Amber Hurd? Two, overall, everything that you've seen, do you think it would have changed the verdict and Amber Hurd would have won?

And three, do you think it's going to affect her appeal? I think it very well could affect her appeal. I don't know that it would have made a difference in the trial just because, you know, Johnny Depp and his attorneys just made a better case for them as opposed to Amber and her team. But I think there's a chance with the post-trial. These do evidence or lack of evidence that should be evidence, perhaps. I think could make a difference in the push draw game. And in the public view of Amber Heard, maybe?

Yeah, I think it definitely would have people. They'll probably end up on the same side that they were during the trial. But, you know, it's, it'll be interesting to see if it starts to sway in Amber's favor. All right. We'll see. We're always have updates in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard saga. Tisha Morris, thank you so much for coming on. Thank you.

It's been tough. You know, just trying to make sure that I stay balanced with my mental and just my social life. But I have a great family. I have a great legal team, and I have a great support cast here in this organization. So when I walk into the building, all that stuff is outside. I got to focus on football and my teammates, building that trust with those guys in the football field and off the field. And just really just coming to work because the game plan is, you know, the season starts and getting everyone on the same page. Now, as our loyal sidebar listeners know, we have been capable.

carefully following the Deshaun Watson situation. The Brown's quarterback was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct and faced lawsuits surrounding these allegations as well, many of which he actually settled. But it did become a question of whether or not he would receive any disciplinary action on the field. Well, it has been confirmed that Judge Sue L. Robinson, who was overseeing the case, has suspended Watson for six games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. Now, it should be noted that there was no.

fine imposed on Watson. But this might not be the end of the story because the NFL could appeal this. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell could impose a longer suspension. So what's really going to happen? How do we make sense of it? Well, I'm joined again by Mike Florio, the founder of Pro Football Talk.com, an author of playmakers, how the NFL really works and does it. Mike, good to see you again. Good to be with you again. How's everything today? Everything's good. I'm curious what kind of day to Sean Watson is having. Is this a good thing? I mean, was you surprised by this at all? Well, I would have been surprised if I hadn't been paying such close attention over the past months to where things were going. And that's my big concern from the NFL's perspective,

as it hopes that public reaction will go a certain way. Most people weren't paying attention. It's July. It's holiday time. It's vacation time. People aren't in the weeds like they are during football season. I think a lot of people were surprised by the fact that it was only six games. we had heard so much for months about 24 lawsuits that had been filed against Deshawn Watson, the HBO Real Sports feature, the New York Times article that said 66 women had provided private massages to Deshawn Watson over a 17-month period. There's a disconnect between what we're aware of in the public and what ultimately was presented to Judge Robinson for, not 24, four accusers. There was a fifth, but the NFL tried to introduce a media report instead of actual

evidence. And a 25-year federal judge looks at that and says, you don't just hand me a newspaper and ask me to take your word for it. You got to bring in evidence. So there were four accusers resulted in the six-game suspension. And I think what the league needs to do during the three-day period that it has to assess whether to appeal, it needs to pay very careful attention to public reaction and decide whether or not it believes the reaction is sufficiently negative, demanding that the league fixed this and use its appeal power to do so because the appeal goes to the commissioner, not to some outside party. So they have the outside party for the first decision, but at the end of the day, the commissioner is still responsible for and has power over whatever

the final outcome may be. You couldn't have teed it up better for me because you know what I'm going to ask you. I've been seeing this kind of outrage that the fact he gets, six-game suspension, but Falcons wide receiver Calvin Ridley was suspended for a whole season for betting. People are saying this is, you know, not fair. What do you make of it? Well, and we could throw in other examples as well. How about DeAndre Hopkins? Cardinals receiver, who was previously a teammate of Watson's in Houston, he got a six-game suspension for having a trace amount of a PED and a urine sample. Well, six games for that and six games for this. We need to remember that these aren't apples and apples comparisons or different policies. And I think from the NFL's perspective,

here's the fundamental difference. Betting on the game is a threat to the integrity of the game. It goes directly to what we're doing. Cheating the game, PED violation goes directly to the integrity of what we're doing. You're cheating the game. The personal conduct policy is, frankly, a PR tool that was created to give the league away to address fan concern when someone gets in trouble. anywhere in the world other than in the building. And guys are left to their own devices for seven months. They have off-season workouts, et cetera. But they're on their own a lot.

They are off the clock a lot. And 99% of the employers in this country would take the position. It's not our business to police what people do when they're not working. If they can't show up for work because they're in jail, that's a problem. But we're not going to discipline someone who was sued. We're not going to discipline someone who was investigated and never even indicted. we can't take action the league with the agreement of the union created this mechanism for responding to public outcry but it's unrelated to the league's mission so the league created this mess for itself

and the league's the one that gets to dance through the minefield here when when comparing what seems to us like apples and apples but it's really not because personal conduct away from work has nothing to do with the league's mission i think that's a fair distinction and it's a good distinction you mentioned what the NFL might be looking at for the next three days. I mean, if you had to guess, do you think they're going to appeal this? Do you think that Roger Cadell is ultimately going to impose a harsher suspension here for him? And what do you think is going to ultimately happen? Well, I think they will appeal it for two reasons. One, they fundamentally disagree with this. They went into the hearing, the NFL did, asking for a minimum suspension of one year.

Now, unless that was just gamesmanship to try to get Judge Robinson to give six games instead of four games or two games or no games, that's what they want. And the same person that made the final decision to tell the league's lawyers, go get me one year, is the guy who handles the appeal. And it's crazy that that's still part of this, that it all comes back to Roger Goodell at the end of the day. And also, I think there's a power dynamic at play here as it relates to collective bargaining. Management, labor. Management has the power in this case. And we're going to use the power.

And if you don't like that we have the power, we'll see you at the bargaining table. and you can give us something, and we'll give up this power. But as long as we have this power, we're going to use it as a reminder to you that you gave it to us. And if you want to change it, then that'll be in the next CBA or on a side letter if you want to have a negotiation right now. So I think they're not in the habit of giving up their rights. And I think in this case, they're going to appeal it, I believe, and I believe that the final decision will be more than six games. Yeah, you know, the NFLPA said they're not going to appeal it. They're hoping the league will do the same.

But as you said, that might not be what happens. Mike Florio, always a pleasure to talk with you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Colombian singer Shakira is headed to trial. And while her hips may not lie, the question is do her tax documents? That's right. Prosecutors in Spain are pushing forward with six tax evasion-related charges against Shakira.

They claim that she committed tax fraud in the amount of 50. million dollars and they're also seeking a fine in the amount of over 24 million dollars the judge in this case said that there is quote sufficient evidence of criminality to go forward with the trial the evidence presented so far is that while she listed the bahamas as her residence from 2012 to 2014 prosecutors say she was actually living in spain and therefore is liable for taxes in that jurisdiction in those years now this is very very serious because because she could face years in prison. So to help make sense of this,

I'm joined right now by Entertainment Attorney Jonathan Handel. Jonathan, good to see again. Jesse, good to be back. All right. So my understanding is apparently there was a deal that fell through, right? There was a deal that fell through between prosecutors and Shakira, maybe some sort of plea deal. Now they're headed to trial.

What can you make of that? Well, it is, as you said, very serious. they are saying that they're not impressed by her hips. What they are impressed by is the alleged evidence that fans and social media posts and blogs and media generally mainstream media have enough documentation of the time that she spent in Spain that they alleged she spent, I believe, over 200 days each year in Spain. Spanish law requires that if you spend 184 days or more, basically a little over half a year in the country, that you're considered a resident for tax purposes. She faces up to eight

years in prison and the $24 million fine that you mentioned. Before we even get to what a punishment could be, I'm a little confused because my understanding is that back in 2019, she testified before a judge and said that she, and her PR firm came back and said she paid everything she was supposed to pay. It seems when you're seeing this that she did everything she was supposed to do, but I guess there's still this outstanding question of was she engaged in fraud. Was she deliberately misleading the government about where she was living and what she was paying? I mean, it seemed like she was trying to settle this or back a few years ago. So why is this going to trial now? Well, she did reportedly deposit with the Spanish authorities the amount that they say is due plus interest.

But curing something after the fact is not necessarily going to satisfy a criminal tax fraud prosecution because otherwise people, you know, it's a get out of jail free card. People could just commit tax fraud, as is alleged here. And let's emphasize that we have not had a trial yet. The trial date, in fact, has not been set. And, you know, and then if they don't get caught, they win. they do get caught, they pay what they owe plus interest, and they still win. And that's not acceptable to the taxing authorities. So, you know, it is not, I mean, just to put ordinary taxpayers' hearts at rest, when you make a mistake on your tax forms, you know, the IRS does

not generally come after you for tax fraud unless there is evidence of actual, you know, of actual intent to, you know, and egregiousness. But, you know, the Spanish exactly exactly why this is a criminal case rather than a civil case seems to depend on two things. One is the fact that the amount involved is very large. The second is the fact that she used multiple Bahamas and Cayman Island type shell companies, and they allege that that was to conceal the source of her income. It's interesting to note that among the evidence, as I'm reporting the reported by the Washington Post, is leaked documents from the so-called Pandora Papers and Paradise Papers,

which were two sets of multiple terabyte millions of pages of documents that investigative journalists revealed about all, you know, just were able to obtain and revealed about the work that many celebrities and executives and CEOs use to conceal their income or perhaps to evade taxes. it's not the first time that we've heard this and you know it's interesting i know i don't you correct me if you're wrong if you're an expert in spanish law but the but the way that they say it is that she could face up to eight years in prison but my understanding is is that if she's a first time offender the judge can actually waive a prison term what what can you tell us about what she

could actually face if she's convicted here well i'm i'm not an expert in spanish law and i don't even play one on tv but uh in fact there it is reporting reported that the fact that she deposited that money that we alluded to would be taken into account as a mitigating factor. And it doesn't surprise me that the first-time offender would be as well. So, you know, whether this is actually going to lead if she's convicted to prison time is a, you know, it's just an open question. It would be something of a surprise. But it could happen. It could. I mean, her team has released a statement that says, Shakira and her team that this case constitutes a total violation of her rights, since she has always shown impeccable

behavior as a person and taxpayer and total willingness to resolve any disagreement from the beginning, even before the criminal proceeding. So this looks like it's headed to trial. Hopefully we'll follow it as best as we can. Jonathan Handel, thank you so much. Thank you, Jesse. And everyone out there, thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. Sidebar is produced by Sam Goldberg, YouTube manager, Zoki and Alyssa Fisher as our booking producer. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.