Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax County

[Anonymous]

I just don't find him credible when he testifies to what he was doing when he was drunk and high out of his mind. He says he didn't hit her but he punched the wall near her head (that's abuse btw! How is that not abuse?!) on the plane. Later on he was absolutely passed out. How are we to believe he remembers what he did or didn't do when he was high? Of course he wants to believe he wouldn't do something like that, but here's a guy writing insults in blood and paint all over the wall. (Isn't that abuse, too? Accusing your wife of sleeping with another actor and painting it all over the house wtf?)

I didn't see the later stuff. Was there some sort of video?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't find him credible when he testifies to what he was doing when he was drunk and high out of his mind. He says he didn't hit her but he punched the wall near her head (that's abuse btw! How is that not abuse?!) on the plane. Later on he was absolutely passed out. How are we to believe he remembers what he did or didn't do when he was high? Of course he wants to believe he wouldn't do something like that, but here's a guy writing insults in blood and paint all over the wall. (Isn't that abuse, too? Accusing your wife of sleeping with another actor and painting it all over the house wtf?)

I didn't see the later stuff. Was there some sort of video?

The video consisted of him slamming cabinets around, clearly angry and she’s asking him what happened and what’s wrong and he’s acting really angry at her saying “oh, NOTHING HAPPENED TO YOU TODAY” in a menacing voice. Meanwhile he’s just slamming shit around the kitchen, notices she’s recording and then advances saying “Are you recording this?” And then there’s some scuffle for the camera.

It was not good. It made me want to hide under a table.

MAde even worse when Depp on the stand said “If she was so scared why didn’t she leave?” There’s a winning argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Heard’s female attorney was so so so bad at cross examination today of Depp’s friend. She scored zero points, couldn’t control the witness and I think alienated the jury with innane questions. She broke every rule of cross. I’m not sure how important this friend’s testimony will ultimately be, but it was crying-worthy to watch.
Can you explain for the non-lawyers?

Sure-the point of cross is to frame your leading questions in such a way that you are boxing them in their testimony. Ask them yes or no questions on the most important points, that way you control the witness. don’t ask them open-ended questions that gives them the opportunity to just repeat the damaging narrative they already testified to and never ever ask them a question you don’t know the answer to. And, if you land a good punch, stop asking on that issue. This attorney violated all those rules which resulted in this witness being able to ramble on a narrative and she could not stop him from talking.

Thanks for the update. You’d think after all these years to prepare, the lawyer would have all that down pat. Esp only asking yes/no questions.

I mean, yes, but this can be easier said than done. You ask a yes or no question, the witness will not give a yes or no answer, you tell them you are just looking for a yes or a no, the judge may say to the witness, "Answer the question, and then you can explain." So, it's hard to limit someone to just saying yes or no if they really want to say more. Then it may look suspicious / detrimental to you, the lawyer, if you don't allow them to explain at all -- like you're not allowing them to give their true answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the judge? I'm impressed by her rulings on objections and general courtroom decorum / management.

I have several lawyer friends that have been in front of her. All have the utmost respect for her and said she’s incredibly fair.

Interesting - thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish they could be awarded contemptuous damages, one buck each. No way he wins this.

1+. This is like a massive train wreck where the parties are staggering out and trying to parse exactly how much more blood you spilled than me. I wonder if there is a way for the judge to dismiss this without going through the full trial -- cutting it short would probably *benefit* Depp's reputation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they could be awarded contemptuous damages, one buck each. No way he wins this.

1+. This is like a massive train wreck where the parties are staggering out and trying to parse exactly how much more blood you spilled than me. I wonder if there is a way for the judge to dismiss this without going through the full trial -- cutting it short would probably *benefit* Depp's reputation!

Heard's team will almost certainly move for summary judgment on Depp's claim following his case. But not super likely it gets granted. Since she's counterclaimin, the trial would still continue.

[Anonymous]

I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

[Anonymous]

The Depp worship I'm seeing online is really disturbing. He isn't his characters and people don't seem to understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

A judge like that is also probably totally annoyed she has to deal with a giant media case. When I was a clerk we always hated media cases. It's this giant mess to oversee and still a bunch of other work to do (the rest of the docket doesn't go away). Trial days always meant working very late and coming in early to get everything done and weeks of that? Awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

She does seem knowledgeable about the rules of evidence. She quickly and assertively rules on the objections then says, "Ask your next question," so the lawyers don't come back with more arguments on the objections or try to re-ask the same thing. She also has good courtroom decorum and comes across as polite and fair in her rulings rather than snarky/frustrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

A judge like that is also probably totally annoyed she has to deal with a giant media case. When I was a clerk we always hated media cases. It's this giant mess to oversee and still a bunch of other work to do (the rest of the docket doesn't go away). Trial days always meant working very late and coming in early to get everything done and weeks of that? Awful.

Maybe, but it allows her the opportunity to get good press as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

She does seem knowledgeable about the rules of evidence. She quickly and assertively rules on the objections then says, "Ask your next question," so the lawyers don't come back with more arguments on the objections or try to re-ask the same thing. She also has good courtroom decorum and comes across as polite and fair in her rulings rather than snarky/frustrated.

She also seems affable and approachable. She’s a very good judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

She does seem knowledgeable about the rules of evidence. She quickly and assertively rules on the objections then says, "Ask your next question," so the lawyers don't come back with more arguments on the objections or try to re-ask the same thing. She also has good courtroom decorum and comes across as polite and fair in her rulings rather than snarky/frustrated.

She also seems affable and approachable. She’s a very good judge.

She does. What do you think about the lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had several trials in front of this judge. She’s great, knows the rules of evidence, isn’t afraid to call the balls and strikes, rarely raises her voice, is calm, is practical and requires timeliness and decorum. She’s the type of judge who makes you want to bring your A game and suffers no fools.

She does seem knowledgeable about the rules of evidence. She quickly and assertively rules on the objections then says, "Ask your next question," so the lawyers don't come back with more arguments on the objections or try to re-ask the same thing. She also has good courtroom decorum and comes across as polite and fair in her rulings rather than snarky/frustrated.

She also seems affable and approachable. She’s a very good judge.

She does. What do you think about the lawyers?

I’m curious as to everyone’s opinion on the lawyer today, Heard’s lawyer. I think he’s been doing a pretty good job as Depp had a really bad day today no matter how you slice it. At best he looks pathetic, at worst like a liar. It did get on my nerves though when he kept reminding everyone how he just wanted to move things along. Like, “Love me, everyone! I want to get us all home!” I get what he’s doing but after the fourth or fifth time I was like, this is your job, pal, and you’re compensated quite well for it, I assume. So please zip it about wanting to rush through in the least amount of time possible. The lawsuit is here for whatever reason, good or bad, and it’s actually good for his wallet that it is. So spare me the “look what a good guy I am” routine.

[Anonymous]

That didn't bother me. Appreciate him trying to not waste a bunch of time waiting around every time he introduced an exhibit, agreeing to whatever redactions Heard's side might want even before they demanded them. It seemed generally helpful, imho.

I also like this judge. Only unanimous feeling coming out of this testimony is that the judge absolutely rocks.