Amber Heard’s testimony did not ‘come across as believable’, says trial juror

The anonymous juror said the Aquaman star had been given bad advice by her legal team.

16 June 2022

A juror in Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s defamation case says one of the reasons the verdict was made against the actress was because her testimony “didn’t come across as believable”.

Speaking to US news show Good Morning America (GMA), the anonymous juror said the Aquaman star had been given bad advice by her legal team.

Two weeks ago, a jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, found a 2018 article that Heard wrote for the Washington Post about her experiences as a survivor of domestic abuse to be defamatory.

In her first television interview to NBC Today, which aired in two parts on Tuesday and Wednesday, she said she did not blame the jury for viewing her and her former partner as “Hollywood brats” but insisted she had “no bad feelings or ill will” towards Depp.

The juror, who has remained anonymous, said the Aquaman star had been given bad advice by her legal team (Evelyn Hockstein/AP)

The actor consistently denied during his own evidence the “outrageous, outlandish” claims of abuse and said he had “spoken up for what I have been carrying on my back reluctantly for six years”.

The 59-year-old was awarded 10.35 million US dollars (£8.2 million) in damages.

Following the trial, judge Penney Azcarate ruled that the identities of the seven jurors would remain secret for at least one year.

Speaking about Heard’s testimony, the juror told GMA: “It seemed like she was able to flip the switch on her emotions.

“She would answer one question and she would be crying and two seconds later she would turn ice cold.

“It didn’t seem natural.”

Johnny Depp court case
The jurors seemingly sympathised with Depp more than Heard (Kirsty O’Connor/PA)

Depp by contrast, he added, “just seemed a little more real in terms of how he responded to questions”.

The juror also said there had been inconsistencies with Heard’s testimony about her use of make-up, and that the arguments over her charitable donations were “a fiasco” for the actress.

The six-week trial saw Heard challenged over why she had not yet donated her seven million dollar (£5.7 million) divorce settlement to charities as promised.

The juror said that Heard’s legal team “had sharp elbows versus being sharp”.

“They would cut people off in cross (examination) because they wanted one specific answer without context,” he said.

“They were forcing people to just answer a very narrow question… which was obvious.

“She needs better advice.”

More from Perspective

Get a free copy of our print edition


Leave a Reply

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

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.
You need to agree with the terms to proceed

Your email address will not be published. The views expressed in the comments below are not those of Perspective. We encourage healthy debate, but racist, misogynistic, homophobic and other types of hateful comments will not be published.