Lawyer Explains Why Johnny Depp Won US Defamation Case But Lost Similar Case In UK

KEY POINTS

Johnny Depp won his defamation case against Amber Heard
He lost a similar case in the U.K. in 2020
A legal expert says it's because the U.S. and U.K. courts have different systems of law

Top lawyer Emily D. Baker has explained why Johnny Depp won the U.S. defamation case against Amber Heard when he had lost a similar case in the U.K. in 2020. The jury delivered its final verdict Wednesday and ruled that Heard was liable for defaming Depp.

In 2020, Depp filed a libel suit against News Group Newspapers and its then-executive editor Dan Wootton after news outlet The Sun published an article labeling him a "wife beater." The actor lost the case after the U.K. High Court ruled that Heard's abuse allegations were "substantially true."

Following Wednesday's verdict, Atty. Baker spoke on her YouTube live stream to explain why the U.K. and U.S. courts delivered different verdicts in the same case. She said one of the possible reasons was the judge in the U.K. deemed Heard's testimony that she had donated the entire amount of her divorce settlement from Depp to charity to be absolutely true — something that was proven to be false in the U.S. trial.

"The U.K. has a different system of law, with a different judge, with a different burden, with a different question," explained Baker. "The evidence in the U.K., the judge disregarded a lot of Johnny Depp’s evidence and the judge took into great weight that the money was donated."

"This jury saw evidence that was narrowly tailored and constructed based on our system of law. A different system of law than in the U.K. In the U.K., the judge seemed to disregard a lot of what Johnny Depp said because he was using substances. This jury was not swayed by that. This jury seemed to believe Johnny Depp based on their verdict," she continued.

Baker also said just because Heard lost, it does not mean it's a setback for people who allege domestic violence.

"I think it shows that a jury can sit down and look at the evidence and decide what the facts are," she said, noting that there was a lot more key evidence that would have potentially damaged Heard even more but was kept out of the U.S. trial.

"There was a lot of evidence that is painful to Amber Heard that was kept out of this case. But this does not change what happened in the U.K. case at all," she added.