Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: Welcome back. It's Lacey, and I'm Lauren, and we're here for another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:13] Speaker A: And today we're going to take things in a little different direction than we've kind of been in the last few weeks where we've talked a little bit more about criminal cases. Today we're going to go to a high profile civil case. We are going to look @ Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard. And I think one of the first things to note in this case is are you ever going to get a fair jury?
I think before it even started, there was a lot of team Johnny, team Amber.
And I can tell you, I 100% have a crush on Johnny Depp.
[00:00:48] Speaker B: Same.
[00:00:49] Speaker A: I probably started this crush when I was, you know, in elementary school. Watching what's Eating Gilbert Grape was my first Johnny Depp movie.
And so in that, I feel like I already was biased coming in. So I wanted to ask Lacey, did you have a bias in this case coming in?
[00:01:13] Speaker B: Absolutely. I was a big Johnny Depp fan as well, and I think that plays into lot of these celebrity things. One, I remember one weekend me and my best friend Krista and Sarah did a lake weekend, and we watched Johnny Depp movies all weekend, like in So I do. And, you know, I remember when Richard Sherman was arrested for domestic violence. And I love Richard Sherman. And immediately as a defense attorney, I was like, what all happened? You know, that couldn't have happened. So, yeah, I do think my celebrity favoritism biases my opinion when I hear allegations.
[00:01:53] Speaker A: So I kind of wanted to pose this question in here, like, instead of doing our question of the day. I have a question for you. Do you already have a bias in Blake Lively versus Justin or what's his name? Justin Balboni. And then his name. I don't know, last name. Yeah, we don't know who they are, and it's been in the news. So I want to ask you. Nothing's really came out a whole lot besides you, you know, a little bit of the pleadings, but we haven't got anywhere. Do you have a bias already in that case?
[00:02:23] Speaker B: 100%. I love Blake Lively. Gossip Girl is one of my favorite TV shows. I've always loved her. I love her following her on social media and her kids. And I just. With some of the things she does, I just have so much respect.
You know, they got married, her and her husband at a, like, plantation here in South Carolina. They've since come out. Like, that shouldn't have happened. They shouldn't have don't done that. And so just so much accountability in her own wrongdoing.
And I love how she tries to keep her kids lives as private and normal as possible.
So just on so many levels, I'm just a fan of Blake Lively, so I haven't read much, but I will say when I see articles come out about his defense, I roll my eyes. Like if I'm being honest and 100 I roll my eyes, it's like, oh God, what is he trying to come up with now against Blake? And even as a defense attorney, you know, I know how these cases can be sometimes. But even with that I, I do. I'm. I'm team Blake.
[00:03:28] Speaker A: And see, I think that's like in this. I know we think like biases in the criminal world and all this type stuff, but we still see it in the civil world because I will say at this point, I don't feel like I really have a bias in that case either way because I'm not a Blake Lively fan. For the most part I was team Leon Meester. I was team Blair. Like, and I know they had a feud and I have just like le me or better with everything. And her husband Adam Brody is hilarious. I will say I love Ryan Reynolds, but I just. And the other guy, I like them and Jane the Virgin. So I kind of don't have any opinion. And on what I think with this one, I am less biased than I was in Johnny Depp because 100% with Johnny Depp he was innocent the whole time. But I think with Johnny Depp case, I kind of want to tell people a little bit about the civil world because it's a lot different than criminal, I think. And so far as like maybe not so much the court proceedings, but like with criminal, there's always the state versus this person, the defendant. And so in Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's case, it was not as straightforward as that. So we all know Johnny Depp sued amber heard for 50 million for defamation of character. And this was after he had lost his lawsuit in the UK suing the Daily Son, something like that. Some type of like paparazzi, like magazine in the uk. He had lost that case. And when that happened, he's. Because of the magazine article we all know she wrote, they didn't name him, but name got anything. So when he lost that case, at that point he lost contracts for like, I think he got like incredible Beast or something like in that world. And then like pirates, he actually started to lose contracts. He had. So he sues her for $50 million for defamation, then so he's called the plaintiff. But in this lawsuit, it wasn't just plaintiff versus defendant Amber Heard. With Amber Heard, she countersued him for damages as well for sexual harassment. So in this case, the burden of proof was on both parties to prove their respective cases. And I will say in civil cases, it is not beyond a reasonable doubt like it is in criminal. It is a much lesser bar. Depending on the type case. It's usually like preponderance of evidence, that type stuff.
But so that's kind of how the civil case works. And that's how the jury could come back with a verdict for him and a verdict for her.
Because realistically, they were both plaintiffs in the case and both defendants on the counterclaims. So it's just not quite as straightforward when you're going through that. Another thing with the civil world is you don't have any right not to testify. So, like, even if Johnny Depp hadn't wanted to take the stand in his original case in chief, the other side could have called him and they would have subpoenaed him and they could have made him take the stand the only way. Like in a civil case, if they did ask you, you know, did you murder John Doe, you could plead the fifth as far as answering your questions, but you can't plead the Fifth and not take the stand. If you're subpoenaed, you have to take the stand. If you don't, you are in contempt of court. So that's kind of just some differences in the civil and criminal world, which.
[00:06:57] Speaker B: In their case, the defamation wouldn't be incriminating per se, but definitely if she's accusing him of sexual harassment, that would be when potentially he would invoke his fifth amendment right against self incrimination, potentially.
[00:07:14] Speaker A: Possibly in that situation, if he thought she was getting oppressed like criminal charges or that be investigated. But in this situation, I don't really think that was going anywhere for the most part. But I will say so in this case, what defamation means is that you have slandered somebody's like name and that type stuff. And like with a celebrity. So like defamation, if you try to defame me or Lacey, we're regular people, it's a lower bar. So but with defamation with a celebrity, you have to prove that the person that defamed you had actual malice in doing it, which there's an intent motive in regular cases, no intent celebrities, there's intent. So it was a really much higher burden to prove on defamation and with it being that situation, that meant a lot more evidence had to come into play. That may not have happened in a regular civil case, but because of celebrities, it's a little different.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: It.
[00:08:19] Speaker A: Do you have any questions about the case or do you want me to keep talking about my thoughts on it?
[00:08:25] Speaker B: I want to know, is this common in civil cases to have counterclaims? Like, is it usually that complex?
[00:08:33] Speaker A: Almost every case. Okay, so, like, I will tell you, there are not a whole lot of cases that we have that whether we're the plaintiff or the defendant, there's not cross claims. Because usually in the civil world, maybe if it's like a debt collection case where like Bob Loan Joan, you know, $50,000, and Joan just didn't pay, there's no cross claims. But a lot of times, especially in like construction cases and just a business breach of contract cases, both parties have done something kind of wrong to get where they are. So there's not one truly innocent and one truly guilty. Like, usually it's kind of 50, 50 or like one side. There's usually counterclaims with everything.
And even if you're just trying to get attorneys fees, you have to counterclaim.
[00:09:22] Speaker B: Okay. And then I wanted to comment just for anybody listening.
With defamation claims and stuff like that, you can't just say, well, this person has said something false against me, I'm going to sue them. You do have to prove your damages.
So, for example, if somebody says, Lacey is a bad mom and my business doesn't go down because I'm an attorney and my kids are still with me and, you know, whatever, well, guess what, like, that's not defamation there. I don't have any damages. Now if somebody says, Lacey is a horrible attorney, and let's say this person never even hired me, doesn't know me, I never represented anybody, and my income goes significantly down because of that. And it's got lots of comments and stuff. And I have people calling me and going, oh, we actually looked at your reviews. We don't want to hire you anymore, we'll fire. Yeah, then I can prove damages in a comment.
[00:10:16] Speaker A: So that's kind of one of the things with defamation. One of the things is you do have to prove damages so somebody can get on Google and slander you up and down. But if it does, and it has to be that, they're making statements of fact that are untrue. So if it's, oh, Lacey filed this document the wrong way, and she actually did, that's not defamation, because the truth is a bar to Defamation. And it also has to be something that's not just, like, an opinion. Like, if you said taking it back to, like, mean girls, Lauren is a fugly B otch opinion, that's not anything I can sue you for. Because while I don't feel that way about myself, that is opinion. So you can't stay over that. But here in the Johnny Depp case, I do. That was something I was going to talk about is there was actual damages because he lost roles. He could prove his damages, which was a huge part of his case. He could prove that he got kicked out of certain roles. They asked him to leave. And what the income. And his income did go significantly down when this originally started, because at the start of it, and I am no way wanting to get into, like, sexual assault in the MeToo movement, but when this first started, kind of everybody at that time point was automatically blaming the mail. I mean, and so I think Amber heard at the start of it really got more traction and, oh, Johnny Depp sucks kind of thing.
So he really did lose a lot from this and could show. He went from making X a year to X. So he had actual damages and it hurt his career.
As the case evolved, I think that completely changed. But at the start, I do think Johnny Depp did actually suffer. And so that was one of his big cases, is he did show damages.
One thing I guess as an attorney in the civil world, like I talked about, we don't have the choice of if our client takes the stand or not. All we can do is prep them the best we can.
How did you think Johnny Depp did on the stand?
[00:12:22] Speaker B: I don't remember a lot of his testimony, to be honest. I remember seeing the pictures and reading highlights, but I. I didn't watch everything that was going on.
[00:12:35] Speaker A: So I will tell you from an attorney standpoint, if my client did that, I would be cringing because he was a total jackass. But hilariously funny on the stand. Like, he was Johnny Depp in full Johnny Depp. Like, how he acts in, like, a lot. Not how he acted in Gilbert Grape, but how he acts in pirates and, like, all the, like, funny movies. Very theatrical, very hilarious. So, like, for me as an attorney, if I had prepped him as my client and he got on the stand and did that, I would be up under the table. I would be like, and this happens all the time. We have clients and we will prep them up and down and they will still get on the stand and say the things we've told them not to say. Like Usually for us in the civil world, just answer the question. You don't have to go on a monologue. You also don't have to get snarky. You know, try to be nice, try to be pleasant.
We had one case where we had a client. He was a little bit of grumpy old man, and he showed that on the stand and there was nothing I could do. I had went up and down and told him not to, but it was, I mean, it was okay. It was who he was. But I think Johnny Depp was very theatrical on this stand. And as a, a attorney in that situation, I would have been nervous and I would have thought he would have lost the case if I had prepped him. And that's what he done. But it turns out that was the exact opposite with him. Because of his testimony. I'm pretty sure that's what won him the case because he got up there and was a sarcastic, like, person, was theatrical. I mean, you asked him about the little box with cocaine and he's like, what cocaine? Like, where? And like, stuff like that. So I think obviously him being a celebrity did definitely change because normally if you saw his appearance as a jury member, you'd be like, this man is full of crap. This man is annoying. But because of who he was and because of his looks, I definitely think that impacted things and I think that can impact things in a regular case. Like.
[00:14:35] Speaker B: Yeah, I know. Just thinking about that, how you described him being sarcastic and stuff like that, his Persona. I can think of a case right now where my, the Persona in my, in my client's videos that were shown to the jury was horrible. But when my client took the stand, I mean, just so kind and soft spoken and sweet. And the jury came back not guilty. And I'm thinking of another case and it was the victim, alleged victim, who was very snarky, very rude to me. I was being very nice because, you know, I mean, this is an alleged victim and the jury's watching and it was her that attacked me. And the judge had to call her down and tell her, you know, you're, you just need to answer her questions. There's no, you know, this isn't necessary.
My client is very kind and nice and that helped his credibility. It all comes down to credibility. Honestly, when you're talking about how they are being perceived from the stand, that's what you're hurting when you have that sassiness and stuff like that. Juries usually do not like that and they find you not as credible when you're up there being like that. And, you know, that was another not guilty that I got because it was the alleged victim that was being so rude and she just did. Was not found to be credible by the jury. And so it does play such a big part. It, you know, for any witness, in any case, how the jury perceives you, because it boils down to credibility when you're presenting yourself in that way. So it's interesting that he was acting that way, but yet they found him credible. And I absolutely think it's because he was a celebrity. Right.
[00:16:19] Speaker A: Well, and then, like with her, I think she came across less credible because she came across bitchy and snarky. Like, her tears did not seem real or I guess in some ways he was coming across this way. But I guess people saw him as being real and her is fake kind of thing, and the jury let that incredibility. But also, do you think in regular cases, looks really make a difference? Like, he is attractive. If you have a criminal defendant that you're representing that is, like, gorgeous, do you think that impacts your jury?
[00:16:52] Speaker B: Absolutely. I mean, there's like a. Was it Saturday Night Live or something like that where there was a skit with Tom Brady and it was a guy saying these inappropriate things to a female, and she was like, oh, I'm turning you in for sexual harassment at the workforce. And then Tom Brady comes in, says the same things to her, and it's like, oh, my gosh.
[00:17:15] Speaker A: Really?
[00:17:16] Speaker B: Thank you.
So, you know, that dynamic shows how we are as a society, and we do judge people by how they look. I absolutely do think it comes into a play. Even colors. We talk about colors that our clients should wear on the stand. What colors will make them look softer to a jury and more credible if they see them so. Absolutely.
[00:17:41] Speaker A: I mean, I think, realistically, yes, I think. I think honestly, when it came all down to it, after really seeing the facts and everything, I do think the facts were on Johnny Depp's side. Like, he lost a lot because of her, and she did not prove her burden of the case. I don't think she ever. Because he, like, had great witnesses come on. He had his ex wife come on who'd been with him for years and say, oh, he was never abusive. And, like, tried to throw. And then her attorney tried to say, well, oh, didn't he push you down the steps? And she's like, no, that was a complete tabloid rumor. I fell down and he was there to help me get up. The fact she also pooped on his bed and he could Prove that where she, you know, like, couldn't. I feel like overall, I do think he met his burden where she really didn't prove hers. But I think no matter what came out, I think because of him and his charismaticness, it didn't matter what was said, he was going to win. And what I thought was interesting was with the verdicts, he got 10 million compensatory and 5 million punitive. They did give her $2 million for damages, but they didn't give her any punitives. And I don't know if, you know, regular people. I didn't know this, so, like, I got into actually not even in law school. I think probably practicing punitives are there to punish you. So that's when they think you've done something really wrong. So the jury in this situation saw Amber Heard is not only hurting his reputation, but they wanted to punish her and add that extra $5 million on so that he. But as you can see in a civil case, she still won her case in some ways because she got 2 million, he got 15. So overall he truly won because realistically, at the end of the day, we're netting it at 13. But there were no 100% guilty, not guilty. Like in a criminal case, it's definitely a different world. And the standards are just so different. I think like with the jury to just look at 51, pretty much then in your situations, they need to see like 99 type situations.
[00:19:48] Speaker B: Yeah.
Because that is the, the different burdens. You know, like you said, it was preponderance of the evidence. So if they just slightly believed him more than her, they can find him in favor. Whereas proof beyond reasonable doubt is, you know, if, if you have any doubt for which you can give a reason, you have to find somebody not guilty.
So it's a much higher burden and, and standard there. But I don't know, with the amount of the damages and stuff.
Do you think damages sometimes show how much they believe the other party too, though?
[00:20:23] Speaker A: I do, I will say, like, I think showing Johnny Depp to get that 5 million impunitives really showed that they were on his side.
[00:20:31] Speaker B: Right.
[00:20:32] Speaker A: Because, yeah, they gave her 2 million. He probably was a sucky husband. Like, and then it was pretty sucky to go on and date your attorney right after the trial was over. Although I can't say I blame her.
I don't think that was ethical. But in no way do I blame her because I would be there too.
Sorry, husband. But you know, it is what it is.
But I think overall, yeah, they saw him as more credible. And I think it showed the role that I think our biases do play though, because this whole time social media is blowing up for Johnny Depp and this was a civil case. So civil cases are not sequestered and they're not supposed to get on the Internet and look at stuff. But you can't tell me some of them jurors didn't go look at like stuff online. So they're seeing all the way social media is reacting because this trial was a long trial.
[00:21:25] Speaker B: Right.
[00:21:26] Speaker A: So you can't tell me they didn't go get on Instagram or X or whatever and see. Or tick tock, whatever those they were looking at and see the way social media was growing as pro Johnny. And you have to think they had to take that into account too.
[00:21:40] Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, I get it, but with, with technology going the way it is, how are we. I mean, I guess it's another topic for another day, but just how do we keep jurors as unbiased as we can, you know, with what they're saying? Because I believe you. I highly doubt there wasn't some type of, you know, looking at something else when they were jurors. Like, and I think that's so standard and common. You know, they tell our jurors to do. You can't even talk to anybody about your case. So they're not even sequestered. They're going home to their families. And you're saying they can't go home and talk to their spouse about this case. How many people actually are doing that?
[00:22:23] Speaker A: Right? I mean, like, you know, people. And how many people don't get out, okay, how many of you do not look at the newspaper or look at, you know, like any of these cases, no matter if it's civil or criminal, Unless you're a sequester jury. Like in a high profile murder case, they may sequester the jury and then they know they're not because they are monitoring them 24 7.
But they're not resources to do that on most cases. I mean, like, especially like a case, you know, that's civil, you don't have a right to sequester the juror. So they're out there looking at all this. And I do think social media truly played. I think he would have won regardless, but I do think it probably played into the damages.
[00:23:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I agree, I agree. I don't, I don't know how we keep jurors off social media, especially during trials, but I did, I do think it's happening. I would be shocked if it's not happening on a regular basis, to be honest.
[00:23:23] Speaker A: And while I know this was a high profile case, you know, because we did have two celebrities, there's plenty of cases where you're sitting there watching your local news and see these civil cases, like if it's a local restaurant or a local, you know, murder that happened there are your local news outlets are talking on it. So there's really. I don't know. I think that's a question the courts are going to have to address in the near future because how is social media going to play into it? I also think a lot of people think that if you are involved in a civil case, that doesn't impact you. Like, I know criminal cases were like, oh, it's jail, it's going on record. That can impact them. But I don't think people realize the impact a civil case can have on the rest of your career can have on. If you get an eviction, it's really hard for you to ever go get an apartment again, if you like. In this case, Amber Heard hadn't been in anything else hardly. They wrote her like out of Aquaman 2 to where she had, I think like a minimal thing. And I will say there was probably some toxicness on the set of that because during that case, Jason Momoa, who I also have a celebrity crush on, did support Johnny Depp and wear like hats and stuff like Johnny during this case. So, you know, she may have dealt with some toxic work environment, but she doesn't work anymore. A civil case truly impacted her life. And it does regular people too, like you get in a medical malpractice lawsuit. People see it. I went to, I watched the case when I clerk mad malpractice. I thought I was having need to have my gallbladder removed. And the doctor, I didn't, I was fine. But the doctor asked me, is there anything in particular? I said, don't you dare let that doctor cut me open because I've seen him in a male case.
So I think that's kind of like. I know we talked a lot just in here about civil and criminal. But I think it's important to see the differences but that it can impact your life. And I do think there is so much jury bias and normally do not act like Johnny Depp on the stand because the jury's gonna hate you. And I think that was the one big flaw in his and the one flaw in hers. Otherwise, I think overall their attorneys did a good job at what they were dealt with.
You can't change your person when they testify. You can prep them all you want, but there's nothing you can do. But overall, I thought his legal team did, like, phenomenal bringing in the witnesses they did, the testimony that they got. And I think her team did what they could do with the case at hand. But it's the case your Dale is an attorney you have to deal with, and she wasn't likable.
[00:25:58] Speaker B: Yeah. Yeah. And the biggest highlight I think, that I've taken from this episode as a criminal attorney is really just like what you said, the depth that a civil case can be as far as harm.
You know, I always think you judge. You're just talking about money and civil. But it really does go so much deeper than that. And like you said, this case really proves how deep a civil case really can go. It hits way more than the pocket.
[00:26:26] Speaker A: It does. It's my. It's more than money, especially in a lot of situations. But we hope this gave you some info on the civil world. And we will be back, probably back to criminal next, as we're trying to, you know, rotate. And I will say criminal has a lot bigger cases out there than the civil world.
But we will be back with that. But follow us on Instagram, I think all our podcast channels. Are we on Twitter?
[00:26:55] Speaker B: I don't think we're on Twitter yet.
[00:26:58] Speaker A: Maybe we'll get there one day. But we will. Follow us and let us know what questions you have.
[00:27:04] Speaker B: Yeah, and we'll drop a poll when this episode drops. Are you. You team Amber, or are you with me and Lauren and team Johnny? Let us know your thoughts on that, and we will see y'all next week.
[00:27:16] Speaker A: Oh, speaking of that, real quick, we need to tell. We need to. Next week, remember to tell the results on the.
I know we. The.
The DUI case that we talked about. We did a poll on that one. We need to share those results on our podcast next time.
[00:27:32] Speaker B: Okay. Did we get the results? I got my results. I'll tell y'all next week. I'll look into it. Okay. Bye, guys. Bye.
