Hollywood actor Johnny Depp lost his libel lawsuit against The Sun newspaper in England in 2020. But he won a similar lawsuit in the US against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, on Wednesday.
As the case in the US began, many experts were saying that Depp’s chances of winning were even less than the case in England.
This was due to a much broader interpretation of laws protecting freedom of expression in the United States.
But the jury found Heard guilty of libel in an article about his exposure to domestic violence, meaning they didn’t believe Heard’s statements.
Speaking to the BBC, international media lawyer Mark Stephens says that it is extremely rare for the courts in the USA and England to come up with different decisions.
He says that behind Depp’s victory in the United States was the fact that this case was before a jury.
In the case he filed against The Sun, who wrote about “husband who beat his wife” in England, the decision was given by the judge, not a jury.
“Amber Heard couldn’t convince the public as well as the jury,” says Stephens.
Depp’s lawyers argued in both the US and UK cases that Heard lied, targeted his personality and claimed he was the main abuser.
Stephens says this is a strategy commonly used in sexual assault and domestic violence cases called “deny, attack, swap the roles of victim and aggressor.”
In this strategy, the accuser tries to focus instead of the accused person, and it is questioned whether the complainant is credible instead of whether the accused committed the crime.
Stephens says that this strategy, which he says “defends lawyers deny all allegations, says that the main victim is the accused and tries to undermine the credibility of the complainant”, was noticed by the judge in England and that many evidences that are not related to whether Depp committed a crime were not accepted:
“While the judges don’t fall for this trap, this strategy is extremely effective against the jury.”
It is easier to persuade male members of the jury this way, but there are many women who believe this.
“People have an idea in their minds of how a victim of abuse should look and act, but that’s often not true,” says Stephens.
Journalist Hadley Freeman, who followed both cases and worked for the Guardian, says that another important difference is that the case in the USA was televised, which “turned the trial into a sports competition”.
Every breaking point in the trial was watched by millions of people and a large part of the audience shared in favor of Depp on social media.
The hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp (Justice for Johnny Depp) has been viewed 19 billion times on TikTok.
The jury were told not to look at what was written on the internet, but their phones were not confiscated and their contact with the outside world was not cut off.
Freeman adds that public stance towards Heard is partly due to “a strong backlash against #MeToo.”
“The idea that a woman’s statement is essential seems to have been forgotten when it comes to Amber Heard.”