Amber Heard calls Johnny Depp trial verdict ‘inherently and irreconcilably inconsistent’ in appeal outline
‘Aquaman’ star was found to have defamed Depp on all three counts earlier this year
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Amber Heard has outlined several grounds on which she intends to appeal the trial verdict that found her guilty of defaming ex-husband Johnny Depp.
On Tuesday (11 October), attorneys for the Aquaman star filed an appellate brief to the Court of Appeals in Virginia, detailing 16 grounds for appeal, including a claim that the case should have been dismissed as it shouldn’t have taken place in northern Virginia.
The six-week, Spring defamation trial sided largely with Depp, awarding him $10m (£8m) in compensatory damages and $5m (£4m) in punitive damages. Depp sued Heard for implying he abused her in a 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post.
However, Heard was also awarded $2m (£1.6m) in her countersuit, finding that one of Depp’s attorneys had defamed her when he had branded her abuse allegations a “hoax”.
The four-page court document says that because both sides technically won, the verdict, therefore, is “inherently and irreconcilably inconsistent”.
Additionally, it argues that the 2020 UK libel verdict, which sided with Heard, should have been allowed into evidence.
It further criticises the basis of Depp’s case, saying the parts of the Washington Post op-ed he claimed defamed him were “actionable as statements of fact rather than non-actionable expressions of opinion” and “actionable as defamation by implication”.
Last month, Discovery+ released Johnny vs Amber: The US Trial, the first documentary detailing the former couple’s high-profile trial.
Read The Independent’s three-star review of the documentary here.
It was later announced that Fox’s Tubi would be releasing a movie with its own dramatised take on the case, with actor Mark Hapka Megan as Depp and Megan Davis (Alone in the Dark) cast as Heard.