Why did Johnny’s two trials have opposite results? 

In two contrasting legal battles, Johnny experiences both defeat and victory, raising questions about the factors behind these different outcomes. While Johnny lost his case in the UK in 2020, he won his US defamation trial against Amber in 2022. This article delves into the main reasons behind the contrary verdicts this reverse.

Johnny’s defamation lawsuit in the UK: Huge failure

In November 2020, Johnny’s reputation suffered a severe blow after losing a libel case against British tabloid The Sun. Johnny sued the newspaper for labeling him a “wife beater” in articles related to his previous marriage to Amber. The judge presiding over the trial, Justice Nicol, ruled that The Sun’s claims were “substantially true“, dealing a blow to Johnny’s efforts to clear his name. After this loss, Johnny faced setbacks in his career, including being asked by Warner Bros to step down from his role in the Fantastic Beasts franchise.

Legal experts have warned that defamation cases are difficult to win in the UK, especially because the burden of proof is lower than in the US. In Johnny’s case, the judge found the evidence presented by The Sun to be very convincing, leaving Johnny with few options to appeal. Attorney Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, who represented Amber, expressed confidence at the time, saying Johnny’s defeat in the UK set a precedent for his trial in the US. She predicted a similar outcome in the US, especially with the support of additional evidence.

Johnny’s American Libel Case : A complete turnaround

In contrast to the result in the UK, Johnny won a significant victory in the US defamation case against Amber. On June 1, 2022, a Fairfax, Virginia jury ruled in Johnny’s favor, awarding him $15 million in damages. The case stems from an op-ed Amber wrote in 2018 for The Washington Post, in which she described herself as a victim of domestic abuse without explicitly naming Johnny. Despite this, Johnny still sued her for defamation, claiming that the article had seriously damaged his career.

One of the important differences between British and American trials is the role of the jury. In the UK, only the judge decides on the case, while in the US, the jury makes the final decision. Legal experts say this changing dynamic played a key role in the ruling. In the United States, Johnny’s legal team successfully used a strategy known as “DARVO” (Denial, Attack, Oppose Victim and Offender), which allowed them to paint Amber as the aggressor and Johnny is a victim. This tactic, although controversial, is common in domestic abuse cases in the US but is not allowed in the UK, where judges often prevent the focus from shifting to attacking the accuser.

Impact of public opinion and social media

Another significant difference between the two trials is the influence of public opinion and social networks. The trial in the US was broadcast live, attracting great attention online. Millions of people watched the proceedings, and platforms like TikTok and Twitter were flooded with content supporting Johnny. Hashtags like #JusticeForJohnnyDepp have attracted billions of views, while support for Amber has been relatively muted. Legal experts noted that the overwhelming social media presence supporting Johnny may have influenced the jury’s perception of the case, as they were not completely insulated from public sentiment.

Jennifer Freyd, a psychology expert at Oregon State University, explains that the DARVO strategy contributed to Amber’s public vilification. “Social media has become a battleground where Johnny’s legal team has successfully portrayed Amber as deserving of abuse,” she said. Freyd points out that such tactics can blame victims, making them less trustworthy in the eyes of the public.

Legal strategy and representation

In addition to public opinion, the legal strategies used by both sides played an important role in the different outcomes of Johnny’s two trials. Mark Stephens, a legal expert, emphasized that Johnny’s US legal team has more experience in handling defamation cases than Amber’s representatives. “Amber’s lawyers are not fully equipped for a case of this magnitude,” he explained. Their inexperience was reflected in the way they gave evidence and handled cross-examination. Conversely, Johnny’s team was able to systematically discredit Amber and challenge her credibility before a jury.

Persephone Bridgman Baker, a lawyer specializing in libel cases, further explained that Johnny’s victory in America led the jury to believe his version of events. “The judge and jury accepted Johnny’s legal team’s narrative, which effectively shifted responsibility to Amber,” Baker said. This approach was absent in the UK trial, where the focus remained on whether The Sun accurately reported allegations of abuse.

The contrasting results of Johnny’s trials in England and America highlight the importance of legal strategy, public opinion, and the role of the jury. While Johnny faced a crushing defeat in , theEngland approach of his US legal team, combined with widespread public support, helped him win a stunning victory against the system American court system. This story not only reflects the complexity of libel cases but also highlights how media coverage and public sentiment can heavily influence the outcome of litigation high-level legal battle.