Wednesday, October 27

Johnny Depp’s Attorneys ‘Didn’t Get a Fair Trial’ Tell Appellate Court | Johnny depp


Johnny Depp “did not receive a fair trial” and the higher court ruling that he assaulted his ex-wife Amber Heard and made her fear for her life is “clearly wrong,” the Hollywood star’s attorneys told the appeal court. . .

The 57-year-old sued the Sun over a column by his executive editor, Dan Wootton, which referred to “overwhelming evidence” that he had attacked Heard, 34, during their relationship and described him as a “wife beater. “.

In the initial ruling last month, Judge Nicol dismissed Depp’s claim, saying that the newspaper’s owner, News Group Newspapers, had shown that what was in the article was “substantially true.”

By dismissing Depp’s defamation case, Nicol discovered that 12 of the 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence relied on by NGN did occur. The judge said Depp made Heard “fear for his life” during what he described as a “three-day hostage situation” in Australia in March 2015.

Depp’s attorney, David Sherborne, has asked the appeals court to “vacate the sentence and order a new trial” if permission is given to appeal Nicol’s sentence. But, in documents filed with the appeals court on Thursday, Depp’s attorneys said Nicol’s ruling was “manifestly unsafe.”

Depp’s legal team alleges that Nicol “did not conduct any proper analysis or analysis of Ms. Heard’s changing account, despite the importance of consistency as a consideration of witness testimony.”

Sherborne said that Nicol “concluded that the appellant was guilty of serious physical assault without taking into account or even acknowledging that Ms. Heard had been false in her evidence, without proving her version against the documentary evidence and the evidence of other witnesses, and without making any finding that he did not believe those witnesses ”.

Sherborne added: “Your uncritical acceptance of your account of the events is manifestly insecure.”

The lawyer also argued: “The conclusion that emerges from a general evaluation of the sentence is that (Judge Nicol) decided to find the ‘victim’ but did not provide the necessary analysis to explain or justify that conclusion.

“It also excluded relevant evidence from consideration, ignored or dismissed it as irrelevant matters that substantially undermined Ms. Heard, made findings not supported by the evidence, and failed to assess whether her allegations could withstand proper scrutiny.

“The judge did not adequately assess his credibility with reference to documentary evidence, photographs, recordings or otherwise.”

Sherborne concluded: “This was a very public judgment, delivered by a single judge, which yielded devastating results on extremely serious crimes that had been committed, and where this has had far-reaching implications for the general public, particularly victims or those wrongly accused of alleged domestic abuse. “

It added that, therefore, it is important in such circumstances that there is an effective appeal process.


www.theguardian.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share