On July 1st, Amber Heard's Legal Team Moved to Set Aside and Throw Out the Jury's Verdict that she defamed Johnny Dep. They claimed: (1) there were "inconsistent verdicts" and the jury could not have found for Johnny Depd but also award damages on Heard's Counterclaim; (2) Juror #15 should be investigated because his age doesn't match the registry; (3) the 1st Amendment was violated by allowing "defamation by implication" against a public figure; (4) the Judge erred in letting testimony of damages be presented to the Jury which went beyond the window of 2018-2020, since damages were claimed dating back tot he original TRO and going forward to the present; and (5) Amber Heard never "published" the statements the Jury found to be defamatory by re-tweeting the Washington Post Op-Ed since that kind of "republication" does not give rise to defamation damages.

“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 be born in 1970.”

“it also raises questions about whether and how Juror 15 could have signed a statement affirming, under penalty of perjury, that he was the named juror if he was 25 years younger than the person the Court recognized as Juror 15.”

Va. Code § 8.01-353
Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.”

Butler v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 614 (2002) • In Murder Trial - Juror was ill, couldn’t continue, & held not due process problem to require counsel to immediately voir dire and investigate new jury panel • “When dealing with a statute whose terms are directory, "any determination whether a [party] has suffered prejudice constituting a denial of due process must be made on a case-by-case basis." Jamborsky, 247 Va. at 511, 442 S.E.2d at 639; accord Tran, 260 Va. at 658, 536 S.E.2d at 916; Wilks, 260 Va. at 201, 530 S.E.2d at 668. [***11] ” • Despite Butler's argument to the contrary, he has not demonstrated that he suffered any specific prejudice that constituted a denial of due process as a result of the circuit court's refusal to grant his motion for a continuance when the jury panel had to be reconstituted in this case. • As soon as the new panel list was prepared, the court gave counsel time to review that list. After doing so, Butler's counsel voiced no specific need for additional time in which to investigate any particular juror on the new list. In fact, when asked by the court at that time if he had anything that was not cumulative to say before proceeding, Butler's counsel answered, "No, your Honor."

свернуть