Amber Heard claims Johnny Depp trial juror’s age was wrong in court records in bid to throw out verdict

Court documents list juror’s birth year as 1945, but Heard team says public records say it’s 1970

Amber Heard comments on Johnny Depp's threat of 'total global humiliation'

Amber Heard’s legal team claims that a juror in her high-profile defamation trial was not properly vetted and was 25 years younger than listed in court documents.

Ms Heard is seeking to appeal or throw out the June verdict that found her guilty of defaming her ex-husband Johnny Depp.

In a lengthy filing in Virginia court on Friday, the Aquaman actress’s legal team argued the ruling had a number of issues, including poor legal reasoning, an improperly vetted jury, and excessively awarded damages.

Within the document, her lawyers asked that the court should conduct an investigation of Juror 15 regarding “whether jury service was proper and due process was protected”.

The legal team argues: “On the juror panel list sent to counsel before voir dire, the Court noted that the individual who would later be designated Juror 15 had a birth year of 1945. Juror 15, however, was clearly born later than 1945. Publicly available information demonstrates that he appears to have been born in 1970.”

Because this raises the question that the individual who served as Juror 15 may not, in fact, be the same individual listed before the trial, or that the Court Clerk’s office did not verify his identify, Ms Heard’s lawyers argue that her due process was compromised.

They write: “The Virginia Code does not contemplate jury service by someone not on the venire, for good reason … In any case, but especially a high-profile case such as this one, it is critical to ensure no person who is not on the venire is able to serve on the jury, whether by inadvertence or intention.

“Here, the facts show Juror 15 was decades younger than the individual on the jury panel list, raising questions as to whether they were the same or different people.”

Ms Heard requests that the court verify the information and take “appropriate action based upon the results of the investigation, including if appropriate, ordering a new trial”.

Last month, a seven-person civil jury ruled largely in favour of Mr Depp in a split verdict, finding that Ms Heard had defamed him in a 2018 op-ed in The Washington Post in which she implied he had abused her but did not name him.

The decision ordered Ms Heard to pay the Pirates of the Carribbean star more than $10m in punitive and compensatory damages.

It also held one of Mr Depp’s attorneys defamed Ms Heard, who was awarded $2m in punitive damages.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in