Why is the UK trial not relevant to the US trial?
It's a misconception that Johnny Depp was suing Amber heard in the UK trial, and that his loss meant he was proven guilty of having abused Amber Heard. It's due to these misconceptions that many don't understand why the UK verdict was considered not relevant to the Virginia case. We'll also be going over why the UK wasn't considered to be a fair trial by the Judge of the Virginia case, Judge Penny Azcarate.
Firstly, the UK case was against The Sun, a tabloid magazine, not Amber Heard. Amber heard was only a witness in the UK case, and in fact couldn't be a party to the case as she was not the writer, editor, or publisher of The Sun's article, which Johnny Depp had alleged to have defamed him.
There was also a significant difference in how each case was heard. In the US the case was heard before a jury who had to come to an unanimous decision after hearing all the evidence. In that trial Amber Heard was a party to the claim and therefore subject to discovery.
In the UK the case was heard before one single judge. In that trial Amber heard was not a party to the claim and therefore not subject to discovery, more on why this is important in a bit.
In the UK case Judge Justice Nicol ruled that The Sun's allegations calling Johnny Depp a "wife beater" were "substantially true." However, there's an unfortunate understanding barrier happening here in the way each court uses language.
The way the phrase "substantially true" was used in the UK verdict was not meant in the way that many would believe it to mean, which would be "this definitely happened. It's actually the equivalent to saying "more likely than not," or the preponderance of the evidence standard in the US, which means that you only need to be 51% sure that it's more likely than not that the party did the things they have been accused of. This is similar in the way the court interprets "actual malice" only to mean a person made a statement which they knew was not true, as opposed to the layperson's understanding of the term to mean a person made a statement in a vindictive manner.
Why is this important? Because "substantially true" is not the same as "true beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard for proof in this ruling is only that the judge had to find that it's more likely than not (again, only needed to be 51% sure) that an event occurred.
Furthermore, this was a libel case, or civil trial, and no one is "found guilty" in a civil case. This means Johnny was not found guilty of having abused Amber Heard. The ruling only meant that this judge was 51% sure that 12 of the 14 acts of domestic violence alleged could have occurred, and therefore The Sun hadn't slandered Johnny Depp.
This ties into why the UK trial was not considered justice in the US, but before we get into that it's worth reiterating that AH was only a witness in the UK case. Because AH was only a witness, she was not subject to the same evidentiary rules as the Sun, the other party in the case. This means that JD's side could not gather any potentially damaging evidence (texts, etc.) against AH's claims from her, but AH could provide whatever evidence and testimony for the Sun's case as she wished as she was their witness. AH also wasn't cross examined regarding her testimony of certain abuse incidents [¶240], which is important in trial as it tests a person's narrative and sees how it holds up to pressure.
In addition to this, there was a lot of evidence that wasn't allowed in, such as expert testimony. No phycologists, no one from Hollywood to explain damages, and no doctors were allowed to be brought in to weigh in on evidence. Certain witness testimony, like that of Depp's former partners, Venessa Paradis and Winona Ryder, also weren't allowed in.
There were also issues of credibility in the UK trial and possibly hypocrisy in judgement. (UK Verdict here. Paragraphs referenced below with "¶")
One such matter involved the Australian preceding about illegally importing dogs into Australia in which AH pled guilty.
A series of emails [¶129-133] showed AH was asking Kevin Murphy to persuade Kate James to make a false statement on the matter of the Australia proceedings.
The judge ruled in this matter that because Kevin Murphy was willing to make a false statement in the Australian preceding [¶139-143] that made him less credible in saying it was AH who pressured him to do so, and therefore his statements didn't have an affect on AH's credibility. [¶147 . iv]
This is despite AH having pled guilty to the offense and the series of emails showing AH was trying to persuade others to make false statements on the matter.
In another matter where AH wrote to homeland security claiming Savannah McMillen was not unlawfully working for her, which was alleged to be a lie, AH's former assistant Kate James testified to confirm that the letter was untrue and even included a check written to McMillen as proof that she was employed by AH. [¶109-115]
If one did view this as AH having lied to Homeland Security then this would be a significant concern against her credibility. Also, Kate James would be one to know if McMillen was employed by AH. However, the judge decided that because Kate James had been fired she would not be a credible source to this claim. This goes against the Judge's earlier declaration of approaching evidence on the case where he says that someone giving evidence under oath made them a more reliable witness. * This is related to the matter where the Judge ruled that AH's own admissions to violence [¶171] held no weight as they were heard in an audio tape and not in court under oath [¶175].
In [¶203] the judge accepts that evidence of AH having a quick temper was not evidence that her temper would lead to violence.
However, the judge then later took evidence that JD and AH had an argument on a plane about her role with James Franco [¶239-241] to be evidence that JD would have then kicked AH in the back. Or, stated plainly, as evidence that JD's temper would lead to violence.
AH's claim that JD had kicked her was refuted by Stephen Deuters [¶247, ¶258] and Jerry Judge in their witness statements. However, the judge discounted both their statements saying that because they were employed by JD their loyalties lied with him. [¶265 . iv]
The judge decided to rely on texts [¶257] over witness testimony [¶265], which again went against the Judge's earlier declaration that he considered that witness testimony under oath was more reliable.
Issue was taken with this as the judge took hearsay evidence (the texts) over two witness statements, and seemingly did so only when it was favorable to AH.
In short, AH's actions didn't seem to have an affect on her own credibility. However, other's actions, even when done under pressure of AH, had an affect on their own credibility when testifying to AH's credibility.
In contrast, JD's actions did have an affect on his own credibility, but other's actions, even when shown to be credible witnesses themselves, were determined not to be credible when testifying for JD as their loyalties lied with them.
Otherwise, the judge desired evidence from witnesses speaking under oath, but only seemed to favor said evidence when it was in AH's favor.
It was for these reasons that the UK trial was not considered to be justice by Judge Azcarate, who wrote in an 11 page opinion letter that she was not persuaded by Heard’s argument that Depp “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the U.K. action.
