Judge rejects Amber Heard’s request to invalidate the trial in Johnny Depp’s case

Depp sued Heard for $50 million during an op-ed in 2018 in which she described herself as a public figure representing domestic violence (without mentioning Depp by name). Heard opposed $100 million after Depp’s former attorney, Adam Waldman, referred to her allegations as a hoax.

After six intense weeks of testimony in Fairfax County Circuit Court — the trial took place in Virginia because The Post’s presses and servers are there — a seven-person jury found on June 1 that Heard had, in fact, denigrated Depp with the reference. Double-edged. he is He earned $15 million, an amount reduced to $10.35 million because Virginia law sets an end to punitive damages. Heard was awarded $2 million after a jury found that Waldman had denigrated Heard, one of the three points earned in her counter suit.

After judging Deep Heard: confusion, exhilaration and – to some – disappointment

Earlier this month, Heard’s lawyers filed for a trial error due to several factors, including their claim that one of the seven jurors was not actually the person called to serve on the jury in April. The lawyers argued that the jury list included someone who “was 77 years old at the time,” but the juror who participated was a 52-year-old with the same name and living in the same residence.

The lawyers wrote: “As the Court undoubtedly agrees, it is very troublesome for an individual who has not been called to serve on a jury to appear on jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case like this.”

In Wednesday’s court order, Azkarat denied several of Heard’s post-trial requests “for reasons stated in the transcript” but provided a detailed explanation of why juror service was not grounds for a mistrial. The summons did not include the date of birth, according to Azcaret, and the juror wrote their date of birth on a questionnaire that “meets the legal requirements for service.” The judge noted that both parties questioned the jury and declared it admissible: “Therefore, due process of law has been ensured and provided,” she wrote.

Azcaret also stated that Heard’s team had been provided with the jury list “five days before the trial began” and had several opportunities to object throughout the weeks of proceedings.

“The juror was examined, sat in front of the entire jury, deliberated, and came to a verdict,” Azcaret wrote. “The only evidence before this court is that this juror and all the jurors followed their oath and the instructions and orders of the court. This court is bound by the decision of the appropriate jury.”