Comment A judge on Wednesday rejected Amber Heard’s request to dismiss the high-profile defamation case involving her and ex-husband Johnny Depp. Heard lost to Depp last month. “There is no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing,” Judge Penney Azcarate said in the ruling. Heard’s representatives have not responded to The Washington Post’s request for comment. Depp sued Heard for $50 million over a 2018 Post article in which she described herself as a public figure representing domestic abuse (without mentioning Depp by name). Heard sued for $100 million after a former lawyer for Depp, Adam Waldman, called her claims a hoax. After six intense weeks of testimony in a Fairfax County court — the trial took place in Virginia because The Post’s printing presses and servers are located there — a seven-person jury on June 1 found that Heard had, in fact, defamed Depp with the op. -ed. He was awarded $15 million, which was reduced to $10.35 million because Virginia law limits punitive damages. Heard was awarded $2 million after a jury found that Waldman had defamed Heard, one of three points she made in her counterclaim. After the Depp-Heard verdict: confusion, jubilation and — for a few — disappointment Earlier this month, Heard’s attorneys filed a motion to declare a mistrial on several factors, including their claim that one of the seven jurors was not actually the person summoned for jury duty in April. The lawyers argued that the jury list included someone who “would have been 77 years old at the time,” but that the juror involved was a 52-year-old man of the same name who lived at the same residence. “As the Court no doubt agrees,” the lawyers wrote, “it is deeply troubling for a person who has not been summoned for jury duty to nevertheless appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case like this.” In Wednesday’s ruling, Azcarate denied several of Heard’s post-trial motions for “reasons on the record,” but provided a detailed explanation of why the jury service was not a reason for a mistrial. The summons did not include a date of birth, according to Azcarate, and the juror wrote his date of birth on a questionnaire that “met the legal requirements for service.” The judge noted that both parties questioned the jury and declared it admissible: “Therefore, Due Process was guaranteed and provided,” he wrote. Azcarate also said Heard’s team received the jury list “five days before the trial began” and had plenty of opportunities to object throughout the weeks of proceedings. “The jury was examined, the entire jury participated, deliberated and reached a verdict,” Azcarate wrote. “The only evidence before this Court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, instructions and orders of the Court. This Court is bound by the competent verdict of the jury.”
