Depp wins.
-
More on why he lost in the UK.
She (Attorney Emily Baker) 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.
She never donated money to the LA Children's Hospital or the ACLU despite what she claimed on Dutch TV. After their divorce in 2017 she said she donated the settlement ($7M) to these charities. She didn't. She pledged it. Total donations were about $200K. Much of that paid by Depp.
-
That op ed would actually have qualified as courageous, if it was plausible that Heard had considered the possibility that she could be held liable in court for her righteous claims of victimhood. But of course, she didn't. She was very sure the culture had her back. This was at the height of #MeToo, and she confused the sheer terror of the public of question a woman's accusations, with the attitude a court might have towards those same claims.
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
Somebody who's been there and done that might have a better answer, but I'd guess that what you saw is the lawyer nailing something down unmistakably for his closing argument, as well as highlighting it for the jury.
-
I looked at some videos of the trial.
I found the questions of the lawyers to be rather odd. Maybe somebody with more insight into legal strategy can enlighten me. The majority of the questions, especially from JDs lawyers to AH, were pretty useless as questions. For instance, when they listened to a recording, they'd ask her "Did X say Y in the recording?". Or "Was there a newspaper article with title X on day Y?". So the point seemed to be to just point out or emphasize some evidence, rather than actually getting information from the witness.
Why do the lawyers do that?
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
-
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
@Axtremus said in Depp wins.:
@Klaus said in Depp wins.:
Why do the lawyers do that?
It is said that while in court a lawyer should never ask any question to which he does not already know the answer. A lawyer asks questions in court not to “get information” but to convince the judge or jury of something.
An attorney is not working for "the court". He is working for his/her client.
Each side has a chance to determine what is accurate information. If the opposing side objects, they can let the judge decide.
Ultimately, it is the job of the jury to decide the validity of the evidence presented. They are given very strict instructions as to what they can, and can not, evaluate.
In a jury trial, the judge just serves as the arbiter as to what can and can not be presented in evidence. If either side disagrees, that's a matter of appealing the verdict.
