The Associated Press | The Associated Press
FAIRFAX, Va. — One of the jurors in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard libel trial served poorly, an lawyer for Heard declared in a current filing that asked the court to state a mistrial and order a brand-new trial.
“Newly found realities” program Juror No. 15 in the six-week trial was not the private summoned in April to serve in the case, Heard’s lawyer composed in a five-page memo submitted Friday in Virginia’s Fairfax Circuit Court.
Instead, the filing recommends Juror No. 15 was a moreyouthful private with the verysame last name who “apparently” lives at the verysame address.
“As the Court no doubt concurs, it is deeply bothering for an private not summoned for jury task however to appear for jury task and serve on a jury, particularly in a case such as this,” the filing stated.
Depp tooklegalactionagainst his ex-wife over a December 2018 op-ed Heard composed in The Washington Post explaining herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” Much of the testament focused on whether Heard hadactually been physically and sexually mistreated, as she declared. Depp stated he neverever hit Heard and that she was the abuser.
More: Judge in Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial makes jury decision authorities with $10.3M award
After a televised trial that turned into a phenomenon, the jury discovered in Depp’s favor on all 3 of his declares relating to particular declarations in the 2018 piece.
The jury chose Depp oughtto get $10 million in countervailing damages and $5 million in punitive damages, however the judge lowered the punitive damages award to $350,000 under a state cap.
Heard has formerly stated she prepares to appeal the decision.
Previously: Amber Heard files to dismiss decision or grant retrial in Johnny Depp characterassassination case
News of Friday’s filing was veryfirst reported by Deadline, which published the file online.
The memo broadened upon earlier post-trial movements submitted by Heard’s legal group that asked the judge to toss out the decision versus her. Those movements had raised the possibility that one of the jurors might not haveactually been appropriately vetted by the court.
The mostcurrent filing stated a “jury panel list” in the case consistedof a individual who would haveactually been 77 at the time of the trial. Voter registration info lists 2 people with the verysame last name “apparently” living at