AIBU to want to only discuss the legal aspects of the JD/AH verdict?

[Blackbird2020]

I really enjoyed the series of threads started by @StormzyinaTCup that had a (mainly!) respectful discussion about particular legal aspects of the JD/AH defamation cases.

The last one unfortunately descended into a slanging match and was deleted 😭

If there are any of the old posters from the original threads who’d like to continue the dry and possible boring legal discussion please feel free to join in!

Let’s see how long the civility can last 😉

I think a lot of confusion about this particular case comes the misguided perception that all court cases are there to find people ‘guilty’ or ‘innocent’.

That is true in criminal cases (government vs individual), but in civil cases the situation is more about the rights of a person / organisation being protected.

Both JD/AH cases were civil and were about the civil rights of JD vs The Sun, and JD vs AH respectively.

It would be interesting to see and hear what was submitted in getting the case to court. There was likely enough of a trail connecting what Amber had said between TRO and OpEd time about abuse to Johnny. They also had the ACLU emails between ACLU and Amber that named Johnny. Amber put her name on it as sole author - so I think that is why it is fully attributed to her. The email chain also shows she read it and had input and asked for edits.

I think it was because it was agreed that the implication of the article was strong enough for grounds of defamation. Happy to be corrected, but I think the judge agreed to it on those grounds.

I thnk you are right as even in the jury instruction, it refers throughout to defamatory implication.

The statement has a defamatory implication about...
The defamatory implication was designed and intended....
...this conveyed a defamatory implication to someone....

And in the Jury Instructions there is a page "No. Y" that is the definition and explanation on Defamation by Implication.

You can see it on page 14 in this document
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/assets/documents/pdf/high-profile/depp%20v%20heard/cl-2019-2911-jury-instructions.pdf

Not wrong imo.

I'm glad this thread has started. I keep pointing out to people it's a defamation case and I want to know more without wading through the crap on SM

My SILSs all acting like JD is some kind of hero.

I think that's right. People rattle on about guilt and innocence and also don"t realise the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal trials. i.e. in a criminal trial the jury would have to be absolutely certain, in a civil trial they have to think it was very likely that something happened. It's a huge difference.

In this case the public perception is that became JD 'won' he is innocent of all domestic violence. That is not the question the jury were asked to produce a verdict on.

I would like to know the legal aspect of how Elaine has been able to on on American live TV and basically call judge and jury bias ! Like how is that allowed? Doesn't it make a mockery of the legal system? If every lawyer went on national TV everytime they didn't get the results they want to try and claim they were wronged, surely the legal system is there to decide. And it just makes a complete mockery of it. So bizarre and pretty disgusting, in my opinion.

I really is this legal? What would the judge and jury think? What does that show for her legal firm?

I have a colleague who is adamant JD is 'innocent' , I was so frustrated trying to make them see it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence . Lots of people really don't understand what this trial was about.

Forgot to add what are the legal consequences for her if any?

@shandon14

That seems to have been a misconception on both sides from the start. I saw over and over on here - if they can prove one claim of abuse.... I have posted about 50 times saying the defamation claim is about specific statements and not a finding of guilt or innoncence or absence or presence of abuse. The abuse does matter to a degree in this case as the defamation is based on aspects of abuse and how one represents themselves (or their client) when speaking about it - but it still isn't about whether or not there was abuse. The lawyers didn't help by also putting that into their closing arguments as a way to sway the jury.

Maybe one of the jury will sue her for defamation! I agree, it does seem odd. But maybe not for America 🤷‍♀️

Sorry, that was for @Newrunner29

Why is this in the aibu section?

I was also a bit surprised when Elaine appeared on the tv , surely this shouldn't be allowed especially if they are going to appeal.

sorry, misposted!

She actually admitted it was about him on the stand. I can't quote it exactly but she was talking about how powerful Johnny is etc and said that's why she had to write it

And after she questioned Waldman about being unethical due to speaking out about his client! And after she had her client change her own testimony because of something that came out on TMZ that showed what Amber had just testified to was untrue.

I think she is likely near retirement, wants to write a book, and wants a little publicity. I don't know how the judge will feel.

I don't know about the legalities of it. It does seem that lawyers in America can talk quite freely. They have to adhere to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct but that seems to give them quite a bit of leeway

www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/

Thank u for u reply , its so bizarre but also infuriating , she wouldn't be claiming bias if her client won !

I wonder what Rottonborn thinks and others in her team? I wonder if they agree?!

@Newrunner29

I think it is pretty normal to feel there was a bias when you lose. Johnny's team felt the same way after the UK / Sun loss and also appealed.

These teams have spent years on these cases - a loss is hard to swallow.

Juries and judges both have pros and cons. There are many terrible rulings by judges based on technicalities of the law (innocent people sitting in prison).

Judges and juries are all biased - everyone in life has biases and part of being judged by a jury of your peers is accepting that but spreading out / balancing bias across multiple people.

It was too obvious who it was about. The whole world knew.

I could write about my ex and anyone who knows me would know instantly who it is about.

There won't be any "official" consequences, but Elaine seems to have forgotten that any appeal will go to judges who know Judge Azcarate and won't take kindly to the denigration of Virginia courts and their officers.

If AH appeals on the $ awards, is it possible that she could end up having to pay even more? Plus she has already spent $6million (allegedly) on her legal team. Surely there comes a point where you stop and live your life quietly.

In addition, in order to appeal she has to post bond for the money already awarded - just over $10 million if you deduct what JD owes her. If she doesn't have that, she can't appeal anyway. Plus the money owed will attract interest for however many months/years it takes.

I couldn't live with the stress and drama.

I can't believe her legal team cost so much! I know these things are eye-wateringly expensive. It felt as though he had the better team who deployed better strategy which may have given him an advantage.

Their cross examination of Shannon Curry (the psychologist) landed particularly badly I think - for example, too much weight on her 'having dinner' with JD which was pursued as a line of questioning to (unsuccessfully) try and paint her as biased.