Aurora Starchild
Johnny Depp and his legal team from Brown Rudnick just filed a response to Amber Heard’s request to dismiss the recent verdict from the Depp-Heard trial. As you can imagine, their answer is basically a resounding “not a chance in hell.”
Videos by Rare
“Here, the verdict was well supported by the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the law, and should not be set aside,” the memorandum reads. “Mr. Depp respectfully submits that the Court should deny Ms. Heard’s Post-Trial Motions, which verge into the frivolous.”
Depp’s legal team alleges that Heard’s dismissal plea was filed after the July 1 deadline. They say it could and should be thrown out based on the simple fact that it wasn’t filed on time.
This really makes us wonder, what on earth were Heard’s attorneys doing?
Related: Joe Rogan Wonders If Amber Heard Found Legal Team On Craigslist
The memo continues:
“Following a six-week jury trial, a jury of Ms. Heard’s peers rendered a verdict against her in virtually all respects. Though understandably displeased with the outcome of trial, Ms. Heard has identified no legitimate basis to set aside in any respect the jury’s decision.”
Heard and her legal team also sought to throw out the verdict because of a juror discrepancy. One of the jurors had their birthday listed as what was obviously the wrong decade, which led to questions of legitimacy.
Depp’s team responded:
“In her Supplemental Memorandum, Ms. Heard does not, because she cannot, make any proffer as to why she could not have discovered the ‘new’ facts until now. This is because the Clerk’s Office provided the pre-panel jury list to the parties back on April 6, 2022, more than two months ago and five days before the jury was empaneled. In a rare moment of candor, Ms. Heard admits that she was aware of the purported discrepancy in Juror 15’s birth year from the very start of trial because ‘Juror 15 …was clearly born later than 1945.’”
Depp’s Team Seems To Have It Pretty Easy, Thanks To Heard’s Legal Team
The memo continues, “Ms. Heard therefore concedes she had more than enough time before the trial started, and during the six-week trial, when at least two alternates were available, to investigate and discover the alleged ‘new’ facts. Clearly, Ms. Heard waived any right to allege ‘new’ facts she chose not to investigate for so long, much less to demand the extraordinary remedy of a mistrial.”
We’ll have to see what the judge thinks, but so far it’s not looking very good for Amber Heard.
