Top Differences Between UK and USA Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trials (Sidebar Podcast EP. 33)

one of the losers if the people perceive. that what happened on in the decision is. not fair. it's gonna be our justice systems. and and this is not only the united. states i mean this is the trial is being. broadcast to the world and it's the lack. of trust in institutions that should be. sacred. [Music]. welcome back i'm your host adam. classville reporting for law and crime. the jury has spoken handing johnny depp.

can be safely described as a resounding. victory and his ex-wife amber heard a. crushing defeat. even if it's technically a mixed verdict. the jury made clear that they broadly. disbelieved heard's allegations of. domestic abuse and saddled her with a. massive financial penalty that she may. not be able to pay their findings stand. in stark contrast to those by a british. judge in london less than two years ago. on this episode of objections we examine. what the saga of deaf and heard says.

about the uk and u.s justice systems how. they differ from each other where they. tread similar ground what both trials. say about how we treat allegations of. domestic violence and why some folks are. unlikely to agree with any court's. findings both of the interviews in this. episode were taped well before the. verdict was announced and it's startling. how relevant both remain the day after. it shook the world our story begins with. a small academic journal on accustomed.

to public attention outside its. specialized field the journal of. forensics psychology research and. practice isn't the sort of publication. that often goes viral on the internet. then last summer the journal published. an article by swedish academic professor. teresa silva who wrote an article with. the unassuming title assessment of. credibility of testimony in alleged. intimate partner violence a case report. the case report in question was the uk.

defamation trial brought by johnny depp. depp supporters hailed dr silva's. conclusion that a british high court. judge got it wrong when he ruled that it. was fair to call depp a wife beater it. quickly became the journal's most. popular article twice as widely read as. any other piece listed on the journal's. website when i reached out to the. associate professor at mid-sweden. university dr silva told me it is always. interesting when research can transcend. the walls of academic institutions the. professor said she came to doubt amber.

heard's allegations when she saw the. photographs of her alleged bruises in. tmz the first thing that really impacted. me. was the photographs that was published. there is a clear picture of ember heard. there is no injuries on that face. and she trying to say that their. injuries so on that moment you say wait. a minute something is not is wrong here. who is this person right so this is more. or less the curiosity of the res of the.

researcher that's the psychologist. saying who is this person. why is she trying to present herself and. portray herself. with something that is clear that does. not exist. so. that was when started. my. curiosity in going in the case and with. all my due respect for miss heard i. think that she's a fascinating case. within the the forensic psychology so. myself and with my students also i start.

to analyze who this person is and that's. where i came. inside the case and i just continue. continue continue because the case has. so many things that are so interesting. the more she researched silva said the. more surprised she became that a british. high court judge ruled against depp. we can not. have this type of miscarriage of justice. that i understood was a miscarriage of. justice the rule of the english.

the judge found that 12 out of herds 14. domestic abuse allegations met the civil. standard of truth and silva said that. she wrote the article to come up with a. system to help courts assess credibility. i got shot in saying. what it was not clear here so i. developed. the the the article then i wrote the. article in order to say okay if we do. structured assessment of a structural. assessment of the.

of the case to to to look at the. validity of the statement of the. statement of misheard. we can clear come up to the conclusion. that she has a low credibility and i. wrote the article as a main way to say. we need to. implement this type of assessments. within the justice systems because our. justice systems are very vulnerable. to individuals and if you want i. discussed that in a purposefully or.

non-purposefully way. may just try to deceive the system. explaining the uk system is gavin miller. a prominent british barrister who. recently represented the guardian's. investigative journalist carol. cadwallader when she was sued over her. reporting in the cambridge analytica. scandal as he points out uk law isn't. exactly easy on news organizations or. reporters accused of defamation well i. suppose by comparison with america the.

biggest obstacle we have here is that we. don't have a written constitution so we. don't have the equivalent of the first. amendment and the free speech guarantee. is supposed to be given to american. journalists and american media. organizations. by the first amendment. and we probably have a culture in the. courts that's quite. pro-claimant or as you would call it. quite pro-plaintiff. um cases are determined by judges. uh we don't get to try them before.

jurors as is happening in the. uh in the in the depth and heard trial. and judges um can be quite favorable to. to claimants the plaintiffs in this. country. um so there are a lot of obstacles in. the way of journalists and newspapers. in this country. the biggest single obstacle in. defamation is the presumption of falsity. and the presumption of damage. so. journalists here who have the same. principle defense as in america which is.

truth which have been played out in the. depth trial where defendants try to. prove. allegations are true. have to take on quite a burden in this. country of proving truth. and often that's impossible to discharge. or impossible to discharge successfully. so when depp sued the sun in the uk the. pirates of the caribbean after was in. friendly territory at least in theory he. did not have to prove his innocence the. british tabloid had to prove that they.

didn't defame him and according to a. high court judge they met that heavy. burden but that's a key difference. between the u.s and uk systems when it. comes to civil defamation only the. united states guarantees a jury trial at. least when there's a lot of money. involved and as i say there are no. jurors so you have to persuade a judge. who is an experienced lawyer. that you can make your way through all. that complicated and intricate law to. establish that your right to freedom of.

speech should win out. over the claimant's rights to protect. their reputation. and sometimes that's very difficult to. do one of the most important differences. between the two trials is that in the. united states tv cameras let the public. see everything that's not a very british. approach as mr miller notes did he. follow johnny depp's lawsuit against the. sun when that was happening in the uk. yes i not only followed it but at the. time it was going on i was in the same.

building two or three courts down. defending a different defamation action. and um. spent. the same period coming in and out of. court and and meeting all the dept fans. and. seeing all the hysteria that went on. outside of court. uh and it was quite a it's quite an. interesting contrast for me having. experienced personally. um the progress of that trial in the. high court in london. to watch the equivalent proceedings or. similar proceedings going on in america.

um. and to see the differences between the. two types of proceedings and it's not. just the absence of a jury the um. the way in which the advocates act the. way in which the. obviously the way in which the court is. filmed and streamed and put online make. it a very different sort of trial to our. trial um. it's a very different spectacle. and um. there are lots of elements of the trial. that are very different to the trial he.

had here. um. the amounts of damages being claimed are. substantially bigger which is always the. case in america. um. and uh the the role of the judges and. advocates is very different it's much. more restrained here you know. because you couldn't. you or your viewers couldn't follow the. debt trial in england because we don't. allow cameras in court we don't even. allow. courtroom artists get this who are. sitting watching the proceedings and.

doing drawings for the nighttime news. to do the drawings in the building. they can't do it in the courtroom they. can't do it in the building they have to. memorize. what's going on and they have to go. outside the court building and do the. court drawing for the for the newspapers. and the media we had a very high profile. libel trial last week in the week before. in this country involving two. wives of very famous football players. suing each other. and. one of the biggest issues that raged on.

social media and in the mainstream media. was how bad the courtroom sketches were. of the advocates and the judge and the. protagonists so you don't have any of. those problems in america in america and. i've been transfixed by the streaming of. the trial on law and crime. you get to see the whole thing as it. happens. dr silva the swedish criminologist. praised how the u.s handled transparency. in the courtroom because so much of the. depth in her drama goes beyond the cold.

record she noted i think that we are in. a turning point in time in many things. and um i mean the transparency is. everything right if we had access only. to the uh to reading the the the. transcriptions of the trial. i am quite sure that we will not have. the same. feeling and perception that we have now. all the theatrical way for example that.

hammer heard when she was on the stand. displayed for everyone we could not. perceive this from the transcript only. for the professor just looking at the. tmz photos undermines heard's testimony. that depp was so physically abusive to. her to make her fear for her life when i. asked dr silva how she could make such a. judgment from looking at a photo she. sounded incredulous. adam. this is not rocket science it's just.

common sense look at the photos that. amber heard there is only one photo in. which. it is. visible that or it's credible that is a. breeze that is the photo of the arm when. she she photographs the arm. but the rest of the photos it has the. police said no there is no there is no. bruises on there i have also to say that. before i was a psychologist in the. academic and etc i work for 10 years as. a nurse practitioner.

three of them in emergency room. i have seen many people many people have. seen people with injured face because of. trauma. i have seen women i have been with that. women i know what. painful it is for them that you touch. anything i know how painful is for the. for the nose even if it's not broke to. clean the scabs because the noses bleed. i know what it is the pattern of.

injuries in the lips i have been with. these women i have been treating them. calming their pain dead face of amber. heard in any of the photos she shows. injuries. of. the type of injuries that she describes. right. there is a. bleeding lip that we see in one of the. photos there is a small. bruise. below one one of the eyes that also seen. in the photo that is more. compatible with someone that just make a.

small. pick on the on the on the skin but there. is not the pattern of. injuries that we see in women who had. been terribly abused. as i saw them. and they had to treat them amber heard's. allegations against depp are graphic and. there's no middle ground between the. former couple's accounts in the most. extreme accusation heard claimed that. depp raped her with a liquor bottle.

during a three-day bender when depp was. allegedly hopped up on 8-10 pills of. ecstasy depp vehemently denies this and. claims that heard was one who assaulted. him with a bottle he claims that heard. threw a vodka bottle at him which. allegedly shattered and sliced off his. fingertip dr silva drew from her. experience as a nurse practitioner here. too in explaining why she didn't believe. herd's sexual assault allegation it must. be very hard for someone really.

for someone that has been sexually. abusing the ways that emma heard. uh has said people do perhaps they. cannot conceive children. because of the enormous injuries that. they have because they were. raped with objects. i saw them in the in the hospital i mean. you cannot imagine what is the injuries. the patterns of injuries that these. people can have right. with the bottle is terrible right.

so the women that have. experience. and that. that type of. violence. and and and some men too right that have. been i have been talking with some men i. have been interviewing some men that. have been victims. and and they arrive to points in their. lives when in their process of. victimization in in this. in which they think well. better if i die a bit better if i don't.

i'm not here so you see suicidal. ideation in many of these people. so i think that might be very. terrible for these people to see someone. trying to portray. what they have experienced in a such. false way. there are several other differences. between the us and uk approaches since. the uk has looser hearsay rules the. judge there examined pieces of evidence. kept from the jury in the united states.

and the same is true in reverse of the. uk jury it is it is the case we we have. moved to a system here where it's much. easier to reduce hearsay evidence in. civil proceedings in this country in. fact it's much easier than it is to. reduce in criminal proceedings as well. um america still retains quite strict. um evidential laws about hearsay. evidence. so yes you can get much more of that in. in this country the issue about it. obviously is.

what weight can you give to hearsay. evidence how valuable is it given that. it's second hand you're not getting the. person who originated the evidence in. the witness box in front of the jury or. in front of the judge giving the. evidence and giving the account. uh of that issue of fact. so it's less weighty. the reason we let it in here is is. because of this fundamental distinction. that you have jurors. given the job of trying the facts and.

finding the facts. and we have judges to do it. so what's assumed here is the judge is. going to be much more competent and able. to disregard. worthless hearsay evidence. and give it its proper weight. and not overvalue it and not be. persuaded by it if it's not reliable. than a jury and that's that's the that's. the reason we have more hearsay here. because judges try cases.

there are many other. differences in the way evidence is let. in. here the primary rule is. is a particular piece of evidence. irrelevant or is it prejudicial to a. party. if it's irrelevant the judge won't let. it in. if it's in some way overly prejudicial. to the party the judge won't let it. when depp and heard's divorce finalized. herge pledged to donate her entire seven. million dollar settlement to two. charities the american civil liberties.

union and the children's hospital los. angeles that vow left a big impression. on the uk judge who cited it as evidence. that heard wasn't a quote-unquote gold. digger but the u.s trial showed that. hurd only paid a fraction of the amount. that she pledged that sort of evidence. about. whether she. made the donations. really goes to her credit. and we also control very carefully. evidence that goes to credit.

there's been a lot more evidence in the. american trial about those issues the. donations. than there was in the trial here i think. it's going to her credit. did she lie in the past. when when she told people she'd made the. donations. depp's case of course is that she she. wasn't telling the whole truth there. because the money wasn't delivered up in. one go. and in america the lawyers have really. gone into the nitty-gritty of that you. know what payments were made when by.

whom why were they delayed was it for. tax reasons and all that sort of stuff. you wouldn't get it going in you. wouldn't probably wouldn't have it being. gone into in that much detail in this. country. but the principle is the same that you. can look at. evidence that's not directly relevant to. the issues in the libel. trial. to try and attack a witness's credit or. a partisan credit for something they've. said. that you want to say isn't true so this. shows they're not a truthful person. and it's very interesting how a piece of. evidence like that or an evidential.

issue like that can take on a life of. its own in a piece of litigation like. this to me as a lawyer it's a long way. removed from the central issues in the. case. but you know how lawyers work and they. think they've got a piece of evidence. like that and they can make something of. it. they work it to death. so it's okay. except there's a sort of example of not. being true for witness and herds lawyers. then counter by saying oh no no she's a. really virtuous person. she made a very generous promise and. she's in the process of seeing it.

through u.s judges also allow testimony. from expert witnesses more frequently. than their uk counterparts during depp. and herd's u.s trial the two engaged in. what legal observers call a battle of. the experts a forensic psychologist. retained by depp diagnosed heard with. borderline personality disorder and. histrionic personality disorder a. psychologist retained by heard called. depp a narcissist orthopedic surgeons. for both sides provided competing.

explanations for how depp lost his. fingertip and metadata experts presented. different views on whether heard altered. her photos that sort of wrangling didn't. happen in the uk you really are putting. your finger on the big difference. between the two cases i mean that's. another one. which is a very big difference between. the two cases and the two systems. our. courts. are very very reluctant to admit expert. evidence.

our judges. recognize that trial lawyers like me. um. love a piece of expert evidence. you know it's it's a great tool to have. in your armory as a trial lawyer. particularly in front of a jury but also. in front of a judge that you can call. somebody. who you can say has all this expertise. and then therefore you know that you. should take their evidence very. seriously you should regard it as. accurate. and insightful. uh and and.

well uh rehearsed and well put in the. witness box. um. and you can. you can achieve a lot. through putting in. expert evidence that you can't achieve. just by. factual evidence you can take shortcuts. you can you can say you know somebody is. if somebody is unreliable or somebody is. suffering from. mental ill health or something like that. or you can get experts on financial.

transactions to say well they're a bit. dodgy or they're sound or whatever. here the courts worry about this because. they see trials going off down alleyways. of. contests between experts where they. really want to concentrate on the. factual evidence. and they also don't think. experts are as expert as they claim to. be in a lot of things in this country. there's quite a lot of judicial. skepticism. about whether witnesses are called are. really are as expert as that they're set. out to be.

and that's partly because we've had a. lot of miscarriages of justice in this. country where experts who claim to be. very knowledgeable. um. floated quite contentious evidence and. it later turned out. to be inaccurate and in some cases even. that they were charlatans you know and. their evidence their expertise wasn't. well founded so the courts here. have a have a recent history of stepping. back from expert evidence it's very. difficult to get it in and when i watch. the trial in america i am surprised at.

how much expert evidence is called and. how much expert evidence the jury is. allowed to hear. and i do wonder to myself. what the jury make of it you know. are they seduced by the qualifications. of a witness. for dr silva the u.s system casts her. entire field of forensic psychology in a. bad light. it's terrible i think that every normal. person that is that is not within the. field.

i mean we look at us we. just cannot believe us whatever we say. right i think that is what. people a person who is not within the. field thinks about it has some experts. have presented this oh scientific. studies say scientific studies say. very careful how we present scientific. evidence for people who do not. understand what scientific evidence is. because you can manipulate it. whatever you want right the statistics.

is all well depends it's helpful or half. empty right but it's half and it depends. very much so you can't create big. confusion manipulate the the evidence. without and and this should not happen. in our justice systems well from my. point of view the problem is the justice. system itself that should change i mean. experts should be something ordered by. the court not by the parts. to to not have this i mean we are there.

to. to figure out the truth. at the end of the day the us and uk. trials boil down to a different set of. facts depp sued heard over a washington. post editorial published in december. 2018 in which she described herself as. quote a public figure representing. domestic abuse the editorial was. published one year into the metoo. movement which dr silva commented on in. her article i mean for the movement and.

for the whole society my concern is and. always has been the victims. and what. in my god felt so terrible is what it. can represent for the victims look i was. in 2000 i was in spain in the streets. trying to fight for laws that protect. the victims in dead case women because. we were on that moment. not. alert for the the fact that men can be.

victims too this was something that i. learned in my practice years after. uh but on that moment we were on the. streets we were trying to fight and i. think that me too movement. when it started. had uh a very um. it was very clear that that was the. proposed right and that's what we should. do but also. we deemed the the justice systems is to.

protect the victims to. solve to prevent that this happen again. right so for me it's a terrible. stay back. for the victims not for the metoo. movement i mean i'm not interested in. political movements i'm really concerned. in what it can represent for victims but. for every victim for men victims for. women victims and. what we learn from. can we deceive just the justice system i. mean if.

no consequences come out. if i lie and i have in and i'm not. accountable for my lies well next time i. will lie again or the person that comes. from me and the individuals that don't. know we already fight with the lack of. trust in law enforcement in in. everything that we do so. if we do not have if you do if if we. don't strengthen. with with. accurate and with.

fighting for the truth as much as. possible. at the end really. it's another power in our societies that. just doesn't work. on top of assessing depth's defamation. claims the virginia jury will assess. whether he defamed her when his lawyer. adam waldman described heard's. allegations as a hoax. depp's asked for 50 million dollars. she's asked for 100 million dollars when. the us jury finally reaches a verdict in.

depth versus heard we may never know why. the jury found the way they did. their verdict form will only reveal. liability and a number that's quite. different from what happened in the uk. in 129 pages the uk judge laid out the. evidence and arguments supporting a. dozen domestic abuse allegations against. depp systematically. those detailed findings will follow. depth no matter what the u.s jury. decides. for many it is a damning and devastating.

document of depp's guilt for critics. like dr silva it shows how a single high. court judge got it wrong and forever. stained a man's reputation in the. process the difference between the two. systems that. we're very interested in is. um that you you get verdicts in america. in civil trials and jury trials but you. don't get the full reasoned judgment. that we have in this country. from a judge who's tried the case and.

finds the facts and finds the law. so if you want to know. why amber heard won the libel case in. london. you can go to the judgment and you could. it's very long judgment. and an erudite and detailed by a very. clever judge who listened to the. evidence and then went away and thought. about it and knows the law backwards and. you can read it like a book you can read. exactly what the reasoning was. we wonder. how reliable the outcomes are in america. when.

jurors try cases because you don't you. don't get. um that sort of reasoning you don't get. a judgment. um. and so you know in in the gelatine. maxwell trial for example we we you know. last year we all sat here and pondered. well why why did the jury find the way. they did because you never really know. that with the jury trial and it's one. thing to have that in the criminal case. it's very counter-intuitive for us to. see it happening in a civil case because. we haven't had civil jurors here for a. very long time even if courts on both. sides of the pond reject depp's case dr.

silva says that she's confident about. her conclusions. if the jury ultimately finds an amber. herd's favor would that make you. question some of the conclusions you've. reached about this case not at all. it's the only thing that i can say i. mean. and as i tell you i i mean i really. think that she has a problem. that. she was used by the movements that. exactly were trying to.

come up with the laws in the united. states so. and. trying to potentiate the movements for. women etc is she was you. she was used because she was married. with johnny depp and jody that was a. really. great figure. to say okay we we are going to bring. this down. and. i mean. the case. about the defamation if they find and.

all the. requirements that the virginia. state requires for defamation and etc. that's a legal. aspect to. that the jurors must decide upon but. the core. of the case. i think it's decided for a long time. and one final question on the flip side. if the jury finds in johnny depp's favor.

will you feel some sense of vindication. no to i mean. there is and i think he told these there. is no winners there is losers and i. think that both of them had already lose. i mean both of them are going to. be with the label and with the. load for their lives of what of what of. what. everything that has happened right. besides their own process of destruction.

inside their. marriage the process of destruction of. the trials is for both of them so there. is no winners but there is both are. losers i think. gavin miller who has argued numerous. defamation cases agrees on that point. usually at the end of a libel trial. nobody wins i mean i know somebody wins. but in reality. the process is damaging for both sides. it is in just in the nature of libel and. libel trials when you turn.

the inside out and look at these issues. in a libel trial. it tends to be damaging in some way or. other to both sides. and and there's something. that i practice in this area and i do a. lot of it there's something very. sad often and worrying about libel. trials not all of them but many of them. and um. in a way this case is it is sad that. it's come to this and that this case is. playing out in the way it is. and the the the stress and the damage. that's being done to both sides through.

the process we know it happens we know. why it happens. with defamation trial lawyers we. wouldn't make a living if people. fight out cases like this. but it's not a very happy experience not. a very pleasant experience i'm afraid my. abiding feeling about the trial in. america. is it's even it's even tougher in a way. than the one the one here it's even more. painful to watch to listen to extended. interviews with dr silva and mr miller. please visit the objections youtube page. you can also check out daily trial.

coverage on the lawn crime network. lawncrime.com and law and crime sidebar. hosted by anjanet levy and jesse weber. many thanks to the law and crime team. our producer sam goldberg and our guests. teresa silva and gavin millar for. joining us. the music is hoist by andy g cohen i. hope you enjoyed the show tell your. friends and family please subscribe and. write a review on apple spotify wherever. else you get your podcasts.