Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: "JUROR IMPERSONATOR?"

Transcript

Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: "JUROR IMPERSONATOR?" · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Does it never end with
0:17
Speaker 1: this woman? Amber Hearn is back and the headlines, this
0:23
Speaker 1: time suggesting that a jurar impersonated someone else, a jurar
0:31
Speaker 1: that sat on the Depth Herd trial long shot, Yeah, possible.
0:39
Speaker 1: Could there be a mistrial? Absolutely? I mean I see Grace.
0:44
Speaker 1: This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us
0:46
Speaker 1: here at Fox Nation in series M one eleven. First
0:49
Speaker 1: of all, take a listen to our friends at ABC.
0:51
Speaker 1: Amber Heard's legal team filing emotion for a mistrial and
0:55
Speaker 1: the defamation case between Herd interrrects husband Johnny Depp Herd lawyers,
0:59
Speaker 1: alleging the juror number fifteen was illegally selected, writing Juror
1:03
Speaker 1: Number fifteen was not the individual summon for jury duty
1:07
Speaker 1: on April eleventh, twenty twenty two, and therefore is not
1:10
Speaker 1: part of the jury panel and could not have properly
1:12
Speaker 1: served on the jury at this trial. The request for
1:15
Speaker 1: a new trial is on the basis that Juror fifteen
1:18
Speaker 1: is fifty two years old born in nineteen seventy, while
1:21
Speaker 1: the person summoned living at the same address with the
1:24
Speaker 1: same name was born in nineteen forty five and would
1:27
Speaker 1: have been seventy seven years old at the time of
1:29
Speaker 1: the trial. It's a very tough decision for the court
1:32
Speaker 1: to make on this motion, and it's hard to see
1:34
Speaker 1: how the fact that someone was fifty two years old
1:38
Speaker 1: rather than seventy years old, how that would make a
1:41
Speaker 1: change or a difference in the ultimate verdict. For its attorneys,
1:44
Speaker 1: writing in the motion, the fifty two year old sitting
1:46
Speaker 1: on the jury for six weeks did not appear in
1:49
Speaker 1: the list, adding it is deeply troubling for an individual
1:52
Speaker 1: not summon for jury duty, nonetheless to appear for jury
1:56
Speaker 1: duty and serve on a jury, especially in a case
2:00
Speaker 1: which is this because their case is so much more
2:03
Speaker 1: special than the rest of our cases. Okay, well that's
2:07
Speaker 1: not going down very well, I mean it. See Grace,
2:10
Speaker 1: this is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us
2:12
Speaker 1: here at Fox Nation and series XIM one eleven. What
2:16
Speaker 1: the hey, you know what, let's do a double take.
2:19
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our friends at Fox News. Eberhard's
2:22
Speaker 1: legal team filing new documents in a Virginia court on Friday,
2:25
Speaker 1: arguing that the person known as Jory Number fifteen was
2:29
Speaker 1: not the person that was actually called to serve on
2:32
Speaker 1: jury duty, heard's lawyer saying that the person could not
2:37
Speaker 1: have properly served on the jury at this trial, and
2:40
Speaker 1: their reasoning for those claims is that the jury panel
2:43
Speaker 1: list included a seventy seven year old individual with a
2:46
Speaker 1: birth date in nineteen forty five. However, they say a
2:50
Speaker 1: fifty two year old individual who lives at the same
2:53
Speaker 1: address as the seventy seven year old was the person
2:55
Speaker 1: who actually showed up and ultimately served on the jury.
2:59
Speaker 1: And because of this mistake that they're alleging hert's lawyers
3:02
Speaker 1: are saying her quote due process was therefore compromise, and
3:06
Speaker 1: under these circumstances, a mistrial should be declared and a
3:09
Speaker 1: new trial order. So bottom line, she's saying that this Jarar,
3:14
Speaker 1: this male Jarar, impersonated another person that was rightfully to
3:20
Speaker 1: be in the jury pool. They've got an all star
3:22
Speaker 1: panel to make sense of what we know right now.
3:24
Speaker 1: But first straight out to Charlie Langston. She's been on
3:27
Speaker 1: the case from the very beginning. She is an editor
3:31
Speaker 1: with a dailymail dot com of female Femail. Charlie, thank
3:37
Speaker 1: you so much for beings. So much is happening even
3:40
Speaker 1: after we thought the case was over. What is this.
3:45
Speaker 1: I don't know that any of us thought the case
3:47
Speaker 1: was over just because they ruled a verdict. You know,
3:49
Speaker 1: it was very clear to me from the start that
3:52
Speaker 1: Amba was never going to take this verdict lying down.
3:55
Speaker 1: And this, in my mind, is just the latest in
3:59
Speaker 1: a increasingly long line of attempts being made by her
4:03
Speaker 1: legal team to try and get the verdicts thrown out.
4:07
Speaker 1: This new kind of you claim being made by her
4:11
Speaker 1: attorneys is basically saying that one of the people who
4:15
Speaker 1: served on the jury, one of the people who sided
4:18
Speaker 1: with Johnny Depp, was never meant to be there in
4:20
Speaker 1: the first place. But the interesting thing to me is
4:23
Speaker 1: that her lawyers have not yet said, or not yet
4:26
Speaker 1: made clear how on earth they found this information out.
4:30
Speaker 1: Now we knew that the jury who served in this trial,
4:34
Speaker 1: they were all supposed to be silent, supposed to be
4:37
Speaker 1: quiet for at least a year after the trial, and
4:41
Speaker 1: as yet we have no clue exactly how Amberhard's legal
4:44
Speaker 1: team stumbled upon this. But the kind of you know
4:49
Speaker 1: motion that they have filed to have this trial be
4:52
Speaker 1: ruled a mistrial comes just days after they also said that,
4:56
Speaker 1: you know, some of the evidence that was used in
4:59
Speaker 1: the trial does not support the verdict. I do think
5:03
Speaker 1: that you know she has grounds to try an appeal.
5:06
Speaker 1: I think you know. I'm not a legal expert, but
5:08
Speaker 1: I'm sure that legal experts would agree that if you
5:12
Speaker 1: think you have an opportunity to get the verdict thrown
5:16
Speaker 1: out or to appeal the verdict, then you should do so.
5:19
Speaker 1: But it feels slightly to me at the moment like
5:21
Speaker 1: they're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping that
5:24
Speaker 1: something will stick. Charlie Langston, that was perfectly said. You
5:28
Speaker 1: are correct. Everyone that is either convicted or found to
5:33
Speaker 1: be libel at a civil trial has a right to appeal.
5:38
Speaker 1: That's part of our legal process. It's in the Bill
5:42
Speaker 1: of Rights where you have a right to a lawyer.
5:45
Speaker 1: You have a right to a lawyer. Even if you
5:47
Speaker 1: can't pay for a lawyer, the state will appoint one
5:49
Speaker 1: and pay for one. You have the right to call witnesses.
5:52
Speaker 1: You have the right to cross exam or witnesses if
5:54
Speaker 1: any brought by the other side. You have a right
5:57
Speaker 1: to an appeal, and if you cannot afford an appeal,
6:00
Speaker 1: of the state will also pay for an appeal for you.
6:04
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Daryl Cohen you know how, just
6:07
Speaker 1: like roll that off the tip of my tongue. You
6:09
Speaker 1: know why, because in court, when you would take a
6:13
Speaker 1: guilty plea, you had to on the record. Well, you know,
6:17
Speaker 1: I practiced the front of Judge Alberson for so long, Daryl.
6:21
Speaker 1: We had to swear the defendants in that they were
6:24
Speaker 1: telling the truth, and then on the record, taken down
6:28
Speaker 1: by a court reporter. Give them all of their rights,
6:31
Speaker 1: and the right to an appeal is one of those
6:35
Speaker 1: constitutional rights. I mean, of course she has the right
6:38
Speaker 1: to ask for a mistrial. I'd be just mad if
6:40
Speaker 1: she didn't. That doesn't mean anything that she's saying makes
6:44
Speaker 1: any sense. Well, I don't know if it makes sense
6:46
Speaker 1: or not, Nancy. If if this fifty two year old
6:51
Speaker 1: was there as opposed to a seventy seven year old,
6:55
Speaker 1: then I think that the jury is tainted if that's
6:58
Speaker 1: the case. And I don't know where they came up
7:01
Speaker 1: with it, but I'll say this as well, A seventy
7:03
Speaker 1: seven year old will possibly look at this and hear
7:07
Speaker 1: this in a different way than a fifty two year old.
7:10
Speaker 1: Oh okay, sorry, but Daryl Cohen, I feel a moral
7:14
Speaker 1: obligation to just stop you right there. Because you have
7:18
Speaker 1: struck a lot of juries like I have, like other
7:21
Speaker 1: people on this panel have, and we all know that
7:26
Speaker 1: both sides get a big, that thick print out of
7:31
Speaker 1: information on the jurars. It clearly has your dB on
7:37
Speaker 1: the print out. If they couldn't look at this guy
7:40
Speaker 1: and figure out there's a twenty five year age difference
7:44
Speaker 1: that he clearly is not seventy seven years old, that's
7:48
Speaker 1: on them, Daryl. You can't fail at trial not notice
7:56
Speaker 1: that there is a clear error and not object to
8:02
Speaker 1: it then bring it up on appeal if you cause
8:06
Speaker 1: the error, Darrell, you cannot site it on appeal as
8:11
Speaker 1: they grounds for a reversal. I agree, Nancy, But did
8:15
Speaker 1: they know? I wasn't there. I didn't see the jury list.
8:19
Speaker 1: I didn't see how well vetted they were. You don't
8:21
Speaker 1: think they could tell it's a fifty year old man
8:23
Speaker 1: versus the eighty year old man seventy seven? Please, no,
8:27
Speaker 1: just answer that one question. I didn't ask you if
8:29
Speaker 1: you were there. I ask you if you believe they
8:33
Speaker 1: can't tell the difference and a seventy seven year old
8:36
Speaker 1: man and a fifty two year old man a twenty
8:38
Speaker 1: five year age difference, Just as a yes. No, you
8:42
Speaker 1: don't think they could tell the difference. Yes, they can
8:44
Speaker 1: tell them. They probably wanted to hear it, because when
8:46
Speaker 1: I had those juror questionnaires, I have a right to
8:49
Speaker 1: explain my answer, and they may. You're not in court.
8:53
Speaker 1: The constitution doesn't apply to you. Just fy, but my
8:56
Speaker 1: constitution does. It's mine. Go ahead, but make it brief
9:00
Speaker 1: for Pete's sake. The truth is they may not have known.
9:04
Speaker 1: And sometimes things come up. They're so obvious you don't
9:07
Speaker 1: see them until suddenly something happens, and until suddenly you
9:11
Speaker 1: lose and you're desperately searching for a ground for appeal.
9:14
Speaker 1: I think it's what you meant to say. How did
9:18
Speaker 1: this happen? I believe it's a father son situation because
9:23
Speaker 1: the GIRAR that came in at age fifty two, as
9:26
Speaker 1: opposed to the GIRR that was summoned age seventy seven,
9:30
Speaker 1: both live at the same address, they both have the
9:34
Speaker 1: same zip code, and they have the same last name,
9:37
Speaker 1: and they're both men. It sounds like it's a senior
9:40
Speaker 1: and a junior. Take a listen now to our friends
9:45
Speaker 1: at Fox News. This is Charles Watson. Now the jurisdiction.
9:48
Speaker 1: This motion was filed in Fairfax County, Virginia does have
9:51
Speaker 1: some siefeguards and police to avoid something like this from happening.
9:55
Speaker 1: They require all county residents to log in with the
9:58
Speaker 1: seven digit DROR numbers called and birthday. But now there
10:02
Speaker 1: are questions about whether those safeguards were used or work
10:05
Speaker 1: this time around to correctly verify the juror's identity. This
10:09
Speaker 1: new filing comes about a week after lawyers were heard
10:13
Speaker 1: requesting to judge to throw out a more than ten
10:15
Speaker 1: million dollar verdict awarded to her ex husband, actor Johnny
10:19
Speaker 1: Depp in a very public definition trial. A jury found
10:22
Speaker 1: Heard defamed Depth and forced him to miss out on
10:26
Speaker 1: work opportunities, following go Washington Post out ed and which
10:29
Speaker 1: Heard alleged she was a victim of domestic abuse. Now,
10:33
Speaker 1: legal experts say this is not a clear cut argument
10:36
Speaker 1: for her. She's going to have to prove a couple
10:38
Speaker 1: of things. Number one, that this wasn't just an honest
10:41
Speaker 1: mistake in number two, that this during question was somehow
10:45
Speaker 1: unfair to her. Yeah, you have to show actual prejudice
10:48
Speaker 1: or harm before you can get a reversal. Time stories
11:04
Speaker 1: with me, Ittsie Grace. I'm curious about what Charley Langston said.
11:10
Speaker 1: She is the editor of female at nilmail dot com. Charley,
11:14
Speaker 1: you've been on the case in the very beginning. You
11:16
Speaker 1: said it feels as if she's just throwing things out
11:19
Speaker 1: to see what if anything sticks. I mean, that's what
11:22
Speaker 1: it feels like to me and I you know, I
11:24
Speaker 1: think it's very interesting the difference in behavior between her
11:30
Speaker 1: and Johnny Depp. Obviously we've discussed if she has the
11:34
Speaker 1: ability to appeal, she absolutely should appeal. But everything that
11:38
Speaker 1: has come out regarding Amber since the trial has been
11:43
Speaker 1: very negative. You know, we saw her do that Today
11:46
Speaker 1: Show interview where she rehashed all of the allegations that
11:50
Speaker 1: she had made that got her in this situation in
11:54
Speaker 1: the first place. And yet days after she was found
11:56
Speaker 1: guilty of defaming Johnny Depp, she's going on national television
12:00
Speaker 1: and repeating those same defamatory claims against him. Then we've
12:04
Speaker 1: got all of this information coming out about a potential
12:07
Speaker 1: legal case that she's involved in in Australia regarding her
12:11
Speaker 1: smuggling her dogs into the country a few years ago
12:13
Speaker 1: and then lying about it. Then we've got claims that
12:16
Speaker 1: she might be writing a book. Then we've got news
12:19
Speaker 1: that her insurance company won't help her pay the defamatory
12:22
Speaker 1: charges that she has to give Johnny Depp. Meanwhile, Johnny,
12:26
Speaker 1: who arguably went into this case as something of a villain,
12:30
Speaker 1: has come out really with the most phenomenal redemption arc.
12:34
Speaker 1: He's doing music, he's going on tours of Europe, He's
12:37
Speaker 1: donating enormous amounts of money to children's hospitals around the world.
12:42
Speaker 1: He's supposedly going to be back on our screens in
12:44
Speaker 1: new movies and TV shows. It just to me, really
12:49
Speaker 1: kind of lays it very bare when you look at
12:52
Speaker 1: the difference between the two of them, and for me,
12:55
Speaker 1: it seems very much like Johnny Depp is a man
12:57
Speaker 1: who wants to put this behind him get on with
13:00
Speaker 1: his life. His attorneys have suggested that he won't even
13:03
Speaker 1: make Amber pay the money that she owes him. He
13:07
Speaker 1: just wants to move on. And she very much seems
13:09
Speaker 1: as though she's a bit of a dog with a
13:11
Speaker 1: bone who will not let this rat well. If she
13:14
Speaker 1: keeps making comments about Depth, she'll probably end up getting
13:17
Speaker 1: sued again by Depth. Speaking of Amber, Heard's interview with
13:21
Speaker 1: Savannah Guthrie, our friend at NBC that Charlie Links had
13:25
Speaker 1: just referred to take a listen to our cut forty.
13:28
Speaker 1: This is Amber heard with Savannah Guthrie, our friend that
13:32
Speaker 1: I worked with a court TV, wonderful person at NBC,
13:37
Speaker 1: Take a listen. I never had to instigate it. I
13:39
Speaker 1: responded to it. When you're living in violence and it
13:43
Speaker 1: becomes it becomes normal, as I testified to, you have
13:48
Speaker 1: to adapt. You say you were responding, but there is evidence.
13:53
Speaker 1: There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting. There are
13:56
Speaker 1: tapes in which you say I started the fight. I
14:00
Speaker 1: know much has been made of these audio tapes. They
14:03
Speaker 1: were first leaps online after being edited. What you would
14:09
Speaker 1: hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening.
14:12
Speaker 1: It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk
14:15
Speaker 1: about that with your abuser too. John Guard, Chief de
14:19
Speaker 1: wd Pitt County Sheriff's Office in Greenville, North Carolina, specializing
14:23
Speaker 1: in domestic violence cases. John Guard, that doesn't even sound
14:27
Speaker 1: that doesn't but she just said doesn't even make sense because,
14:31
Speaker 1: as you will know by getting evidence in at trial,
14:35
Speaker 1: if there is any suggestion that a tape or a
14:38
Speaker 1: video has been tampered with or edited, it is not
14:41
Speaker 1: allowed in trial, right, absolutely, and certainly through discovery you
14:46
Speaker 1: would get the entire entire thing. Not sure how that
14:50
Speaker 1: come about, Yeah, exactly that whole thing. Terli linked in
14:55
Speaker 1: with us from delmail dot com. Those tapes were particularly
15:01
Speaker 1: damning for Amber Heard. And this is what Heard is
15:05
Speaker 1: telling Savannah Guthrie, and they're sitting down interview immediately after
15:09
Speaker 1: the trial. What was that about? Effectively, Savannah Guthrie was
15:13
Speaker 1: saying to Amber Heard, the jury and everyone in the
15:17
Speaker 1: courtroom heard these tapes on which you could be heard
15:21
Speaker 1: making kind of violent suggestions towards Johnny Depp, saying horrible,
15:28
Speaker 1: awful things to him. And what Amber Heard is saying
15:31
Speaker 1: is that actually these tapes were hours and hours and
15:34
Speaker 1: hours long, and that the jury only heard a very
15:38
Speaker 1: small select portion of them. So she was suggesting that
15:42
Speaker 1: the evidence that was used in the trial was in
15:44
Speaker 1: some way tampered with, edited whatever you want to say,
15:48
Speaker 1: in order to make her look worse. Now, again, my
15:51
Speaker 1: legal expertise is very much lacking in comparison with other
15:54
Speaker 1: brilliant people on this phone call. However, even I know
15:58
Speaker 1: that tampered evidence cannot be used in a courtroom. Certainly
16:02
Speaker 1: not fairly. So if she's able to prove that, and
16:05
Speaker 1: if that is actually the case, that is yet another
16:09
Speaker 1: reason why she would be able to appeal the verdict.
16:12
Speaker 1: But once again she's made this claim and we have
16:16
Speaker 1: no evidence to back it up. It's the same thing
16:19
Speaker 1: with these new claims about the fake juror. You know,
16:23
Speaker 1: we've heard that they think this is the case, but
16:26
Speaker 1: we as yet have no evidence to back it up
16:29
Speaker 1: or prove it in any way, shape or form. So
16:32
Speaker 1: that's why I say it feels like her legal team
16:34
Speaker 1: is throwing stuff at the wall to see if it
16:36
Speaker 1: will stick, because they keep making these very sensational claims
16:40
Speaker 1: about why the trial needs to be declared a mistrial
16:43
Speaker 1: and why it needs to be redone, but we don't
16:46
Speaker 1: yet have any proof to back up any of the
16:49
Speaker 1: claims that they're making. Another issue that trial links and
16:52
Speaker 1: brought up rightfully claims by Heard regarding the UK trial.
16:59
Speaker 1: This almost the same issue is tried in England and
17:04
Speaker 1: there was a very different result. Long story short on
17:08
Speaker 1: that it seems as if Amber Heard is claiming, Wow,
17:10
Speaker 1: UK got it right, US messed it up. I want
17:13
Speaker 1: a mistrial. Take a listen to our cut d again
17:16
Speaker 1: This is Amber heard speaking to our France Savannah. There
17:19
Speaker 1: was another trial handled it with the same dealt, with
17:22
Speaker 1: the same subsiditive issues, that had even more evidence. In
17:25
Speaker 1: in fact mine, my evidence was largely kept out, really
17:30
Speaker 1: important pieces of evidence kept out, done differently, handled differently
17:36
Speaker 1: by a judge instead of a jury. Some evidence is
17:40
Speaker 1: admissible in a UK court that is not admissible in
17:42
Speaker 1: a US court. Do you think that maybe he just
17:45
Speaker 1: had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly
17:50
Speaker 1: a better job of distracting the jury from the real
17:52
Speaker 1: issues here. And starn't joining me. High profile psychologist joining
17:58
Speaker 1: us from New York. You can find her Karen start
18:00
Speaker 1: dot com as Karen with a C Karen. It seems
18:05
Speaker 1: to be a suggestion by her that she wanted a
18:10
Speaker 1: judge to preside over the trial. It's referred to as
18:15
Speaker 1: a bitch trial here because the bench is a way
18:19
Speaker 1: to refer to the judge. She seems to say a
18:22
Speaker 1: judge would have been better than a jury. Well, a
18:25
Speaker 1: jury is the American way. That's how it works here.
18:29
Speaker 1: A jury of your peers. Correct. And what she's saying,
18:34
Speaker 1: what she seems to be saying anyway, is that this
18:38
Speaker 1: jury would bias towards him, and that if she had
18:42
Speaker 1: a judge, the judge would be unbiased and would find
18:46
Speaker 1: her not guilty. But it all sounds so desperate, Nancy.
18:50
Speaker 1: She's really she's looking to be vindicated. It's hard to
18:55
Speaker 1: believe that her legal team would think even that it
18:58
Speaker 1: was a good idea for her to go on, Savannah
19:00
Speaker 1: Guntry dudtry because she does not come across as somebody
19:05
Speaker 1: who seems to be victimized. She changes her stories, she
19:10
Speaker 1: comes up with things that can't be validated, and that
19:14
Speaker 1: doesn't make her look any more believable that she did
19:17
Speaker 1: original in court in my opinion. You know, let's just
19:20
Speaker 1: put it to bed. Daryl Cohen, this latest claim that
19:24
Speaker 1: somehow she needs a mistrial because seemingly the son showed
19:29
Speaker 1: up as opposed to the father. Daryl, can we just
19:32
Speaker 1: do a lightning round, Daryl Cohen joining me, high profile
19:35
Speaker 1: a lawyer out of the Atlanta juristiction, former prosecutor felony crimes, Daryl,
19:40
Speaker 1: isn't it true that on appeal you have to show
19:44
Speaker 1: actual injury, harm or prejudice before you get a mistrial? Absolutely? Okst.
19:50
Speaker 1: Isn't it also true that if there is an error
19:54
Speaker 1: at trial that you, the lawyer, could have remedied at trial,
20:00
Speaker 1: that will not be a ground for reversal. For instance,
20:05
Speaker 1: if you fail to lodge an objection to a problem
20:08
Speaker 1: at trial and then you complain about it for the
20:11
Speaker 1: first time on appeal, you're not getting your reversal absolutely correct.
20:15
Speaker 1: But that's if you knew or should have known absolutely Also,
20:19
Speaker 1: in Virginia, which includes of course Fairfax County, the voter
20:25
Speaker 1: registration is what is used as the jury pool. That
20:30
Speaker 1: is similar across the country. They use real estate records,
20:34
Speaker 1: they use voter registration, they use prior jury lists. So
20:41
Speaker 1: would you agree that anything that had happened Daryl Cohen,
20:46
Speaker 1: unless there had been tampering by somebody in the courthouse,
20:52
Speaker 1: that this was a mistake that the son, the younger juror,
20:57
Speaker 1: came with the same last name as the older jurar.
21:00
Speaker 1: I mean, unless you want to think the County Clark
21:02
Speaker 1: has somehow tampered and thought they'd get a better result
21:05
Speaker 1: with a fifty year old versus an eighty year old,
21:08
Speaker 1: that's pretty farfetched. It's like the oj conspiracy theory that
21:11
Speaker 1: didn't happen. No, Nancy, I agree with you, but the
21:15
Speaker 1: age of the juror on the jury sheet that I
21:20
Speaker 1: don't know. They always have their dobs, Darryl Cohen, They
21:24
Speaker 1: always every jar print out you meant, don't you remember
21:30
Speaker 1: there would be the name of the jurr, their dB,
21:34
Speaker 1: their address to make sure they still lived in your
21:37
Speaker 1: jurisdiction Fulton County, because that's what's ricardo a jirr, that
21:41
Speaker 1: you're impartial and that you live in the jurisdiction where
21:45
Speaker 1: the incident occurred. That's really all that's required. That's it,
21:49
Speaker 1: and then they're the right age. That should be the
21:51
Speaker 1: assumption to find her a lot more liabele than Johnny.
21:55
Speaker 1: People keep referring to guilty. It's libel, and that is
21:59
Speaker 1: a possible ability or maybe even a probability. The reality
22:03
Speaker 1: is a fifty two year old may not look at
22:05
Speaker 1: it the same way as seventy seven year old does,
22:08
Speaker 1: and if the person was the wrong perpect could should Well,
22:12
Speaker 1: it's a wrong person that I think it's tainted, whether
22:15
Speaker 1: it's by design or by accident. So then wouldn't you
22:18
Speaker 1: agree that this juror if in that jurisdiction, you can
22:23
Speaker 1: only serve on a jury if you've been a convicted
22:25
Speaker 1: felon if you have had your voter rights reinstated in
22:31
Speaker 1: two years after that, you can then sit on a jury.
22:34
Speaker 1: So unless this guy didn't live in the jurisdiction or
22:38
Speaker 1: was unfair or partial, that he is an appropriate member
22:44
Speaker 1: of the jury pool. Wouldn't you agree with that? Yes,
22:48
Speaker 1: if he was the person called, doesn't matter. If he
22:51
Speaker 1: was not the person, it's a suitable member for a
22:54
Speaker 1: jury pool. Have you This happened to me once I
22:58
Speaker 1: had a defense attorney. I can't remember which one it was. Now,
23:02
Speaker 1: come in all bluster, full of piss of vinegar, showing
23:06
Speaker 1: off in front of the jury and blurts out at
23:09
Speaker 1: the beginning vodyar jury selection. I'll just take the first
23:13
Speaker 1: twelve right in front of the jury. In other words,
23:16
Speaker 1: no jury selection, no vetting, no nothing, Just take the
23:19
Speaker 1: first twelve they came in the courtroom. What could I do, Darryl?
23:22
Speaker 1: I couldn't say, no way, there could be a nun
23:25
Speaker 1: up there. I had to go along with it. I
23:28
Speaker 1: actually tried a case with the first twelve jars that
23:32
Speaker 1: walked in the room out of eighty jurards. Can you
23:35
Speaker 1: believe that that happened? There was a conviction. By the way,
23:39
Speaker 1: it worked for me, but it didn't work for him.
23:42
Speaker 1: So I mean, I think you're acting as if this
23:45
Speaker 1: is some scientific formula. It's not. You get a hundred
23:49
Speaker 1: people in a courtroom and you start asking them questions
23:53
Speaker 1: and you ferret them out bam. If they all live
23:55
Speaker 1: in the jurisdiction, if they don't have a criminal history,
23:59
Speaker 1: if they say they can be fair and impartial, they're
24:02
Speaker 1: on the jury. If they're the people that are called.
24:05
Speaker 1: If it's the wrong person, sorry, I don't believe that's
24:08
Speaker 1: part of the case law. I think you're wrong. I
24:10
Speaker 1: believe it. We'll just see Darryl Cohen. Of course, that's
24:14
Speaker 1: on the first time I said that to Daryl Cohen.
24:29
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. That's not all that's happening
24:38
Speaker 1: right now. Charlie Linkston gave us a little hit about
24:40
Speaker 1: more to come. Take a listen to our cut seventy
24:43
Speaker 1: nine Our friends A Crime Online reports that Amber Heard
24:46
Speaker 1: may be releasing a tell all book have been circling
24:48
Speaker 1: for weeks. Radar Online is reporting that Hurt is working
24:51
Speaker 1: on a multimillion dollar book deal following her recent legal battles.
24:56
Speaker 1: Okay Magazine says the release will be a gut spelling
24:59
Speaker 1: revenge memoir. Rader also suggests that the payday is around
25:03
Speaker 1: fifteen million dollars, but could be more if the bidding
25:06
Speaker 1: war breaks out. However, confirmation of a book deal has
25:09
Speaker 1: not been made. Did I just hear the words, Charlie
25:12
Speaker 1: Lankston joining me from dalmail dot com quote gut spilling
25:15
Speaker 1: a revenge memoir? Did I hear that? Correctly? Yes you did,
25:20
Speaker 1: And honestly, she's going to get suit again. Exactly if
25:23
Speaker 1: we thought that the NBC interview was bad, imagine that,
25:27
Speaker 1: you know, over five hundred pages. It's going to be
25:30
Speaker 1: an absolute disaster. And I, you know, I really do believe. Look,
25:36
Speaker 1: I understand that she doesn't want to kind of go
25:40
Speaker 1: down without a fight. But you can't have it both ways.
25:44
Speaker 1: You can't say that you want to follow strict judicial
25:49
Speaker 1: process and that you want everything to be by the
25:52
Speaker 1: book and above board, and the jury selection needs to
25:54
Speaker 1: have been verified and all of that kind of stuff.
25:57
Speaker 1: But then on the other hand, having you know, been
26:01
Speaker 1: found guilty of defamation, you can't then go on TV
26:05
Speaker 1: and repeat these defamatory allegations. You can't then pen a
26:09
Speaker 1: gut spilling revenge memoir once again rehashing all of these
26:13
Speaker 1: defamatory allegations. You have to play the game one way
26:17
Speaker 1: or another, and at the moment, she's trying to do
26:20
Speaker 1: both things, and it is just portraying her in the
26:24
Speaker 1: most negative light. And while I understand that the court
26:28
Speaker 1: of public opinion is not the one that rules in
26:31
Speaker 1: in the courtroom, it certainly is going to impact her
26:35
Speaker 1: in the future. And no matter what happens with her
26:38
Speaker 1: appeal process, with her request for a mistrial, this kind
26:42
Speaker 1: of behavior is going to destroy her career. But in
26:46
Speaker 1: my opinion, the rest of her life, I do not
26:48
Speaker 1: believe that anyone will hire her to be in a
26:50
Speaker 1: movie again, to be in a TV show again, Whether
26:53
Speaker 1: or not the you know this ends up being ruled
26:57
Speaker 1: a mistrial, or whether or not she's granted an appeal,
27:00
Speaker 1: her reputation at this point is destroyed to beyond any
27:04
Speaker 1: hope of you know, kind of improving it. Ever. Again,
27:08
Speaker 1: in my opinion, boy do I disagree there jump in
27:11
Speaker 1: more than mom. I completely disagree. The more the more
27:14
Speaker 1: grief he gives, the more people want to see her,
27:17
Speaker 1: the more she's going to get a film two or
27:20
Speaker 1: ten because they want to see this evil Amber Heard.
27:23
Speaker 1: It's all about the box. Charlie has nothing to do
27:26
Speaker 1: with the reality of life. You know, Darryl Cohen, you're
27:29
Speaker 1: functioning under the I think it was the Barnum Bailey
27:32
Speaker 1: theory of pr I don't care what you say about it,
27:34
Speaker 1: and just talk about me. So yeah, I hear that
27:37
Speaker 1: school of thought. To John Guard, chief deputy County Sheriff's
27:41
Speaker 1: Office in Greenville, North Carolina, You like I have represented
27:45
Speaker 1: battered women your whole line, your whole career. You have
27:50
Speaker 1: specialized investigating domestic violence cases. I prosecuted almost gosh one
27:58
Speaker 1: of the time a man perpetrating on a female in
28:02
Speaker 1: domestic abuse or domestic homicide as it is coined, and
28:06
Speaker 1: were the hotline the Batter Women Center hotline at night
28:09
Speaker 1: for nine years as a volunteer. John Guard, what happened
28:16
Speaker 1: to Amber Heard's case? Because typically you don't have pictures
28:21
Speaker 1: of bruises, you don't have any kind of corroboration. It's
28:25
Speaker 1: her word against his word or maybe a cop that
28:28
Speaker 1: shows up on the scene. What went wrong and what
28:32
Speaker 1: was seemingly a slam dunk case for Amber Heard? Because buddy,
28:36
Speaker 1: it went sideways? Yeah, I'm not sure absolutely some things
28:43
Speaker 1: you know, may have fallen through the cracks as you're
28:46
Speaker 1: going through. This is why I say, I'm just blessed
28:49
Speaker 1: to be in the criminal side of the courts where
28:53
Speaker 1: we deal with guilt and innocence versus liable or not liable.
28:57
Speaker 1: But you know, having law enforcement involved and being able
29:00
Speaker 1: to bring an impartial group of individuals who have actually
29:04
Speaker 1: done the investigation certainly would would help. That's why, just
29:08
Speaker 1: like you, you know, we always encourage people to reach
29:12
Speaker 1: out for help. And one of those reasons is you're
29:15
Speaker 1: bringing in impartial people into the cycle, into the loop
29:19
Speaker 1: that can you know, grab information that can be potentially
29:25
Speaker 1: later used as evidence. But we didn't really have that here.
29:28
Speaker 1: I know there was a call We'll hold on. Charlie
29:30
Speaker 1: Langston joined me from tellingall dot com. It's I recall
29:33
Speaker 1: several cops showed up to Herd and Depth's apartment on
29:39
Speaker 1: one of these incidents, and I believe they testified they
29:43
Speaker 1: did not see any size of battering on Amber heard.
29:46
Speaker 1: That is correct. Multiple people are including these police officers,
29:50
Speaker 1: testified to say that they never saw any evidence of
29:53
Speaker 1: bruising or anything like that on Amberhood and that all
29:57
Speaker 1: of the injuries that she was seeing, you know, displaying
30:00
Speaker 1: when she went to the courtroom to get a restraining
30:02
Speaker 1: order against him. But that was actually the only instance
30:06
Speaker 1: where she was ever seen with any evidence of physical
30:10
Speaker 1: violence towards her, and that was tainted. I believe, Karen Stark,
30:14
Speaker 1: that was tainted because evidence came in from a producer
30:17
Speaker 1: at TMZ that either she or someone in her camp
30:21
Speaker 1: had tipped them off to come to the courthouse when
30:24
Speaker 1: she was going to get a t ro against Johnny Depp,
30:27
Speaker 1: and that she would be standing in the doorway and
30:30
Speaker 1: she would turn her face a certain way so they
30:32
Speaker 1: could get a picture of the bruise. So bruise or
30:36
Speaker 1: no bruise, that tainted the entire episode, Karen, Well, Nancy,
30:42
Speaker 1: as you keeps saying the whole thing, it doesn't it
30:46
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense to me that she would even
30:49
Speaker 1: want to appeal because she's coming across as somebody who
30:54
Speaker 1: is in it. She's not authentic, she's not believable, she's
30:59
Speaker 1: not buddy dead people are going to care about. And
31:03
Speaker 1: the more that she's doing this, the worst that she's
31:06
Speaker 1: looking to the public anyway, to the court of public opinion.
31:09
Speaker 1: As we keep talking about. So I don't know the
31:13
Speaker 1: legal aspect of whether she can get in at the trial,
31:16
Speaker 1: but she's not looking sympathetic. Well, I would expect her
31:20
Speaker 1: to appeal because everyone that is either convicted or how
31:24
Speaker 1: libel and a civil trial like here, they always appeal.
31:28
Speaker 1: That's the first thing they start. And no matter how
31:31
Speaker 1: great lawyers may be at trial, when you're sitting behind
31:35
Speaker 1: bars or you're looking at a ten million dollar bill
31:37
Speaker 1: you gotta pay in civil court, you'll do anything. You'll
31:40
Speaker 1: look at drowning rat and of course we'll ultimately turn
31:44
Speaker 1: on your lawyers that stood by you in court and
31:46
Speaker 1: claim they were ineffective. That always happens. But Karen start
31:49
Speaker 1: you said, I don't know why she would do this,
31:51
Speaker 1: because it's hurting her in the court of public opinion.
31:53
Speaker 1: I've got a pretty good idea of why she's doing it.
31:56
Speaker 1: Take a listen to our cut eighty one. Our forensic
32:00
Speaker 1: Crime Online TMZ reports that Amber Heard's latest battle is
32:04
Speaker 1: with her insurance company. The Aquaman actress reportedly wants to
32:08
Speaker 1: use a one million dollar liability policy with New York,
32:12
Speaker 1: Maine and General insurance company, which converts defamation and other
32:16
Speaker 1: forms of wrongdoing, but the insurance company does not want
32:19
Speaker 1: to pay. TMZ reports. The insurance company claims that, according
32:23
Speaker 1: to California law, they don't have to pay because Hurd
32:26
Speaker 1: committed a willful and malicious act of misconduct by defaming
32:30
Speaker 1: the Pirates of the Caribbean. Actor New York Maine is
32:33
Speaker 1: asking for a ruling from the judge, saying just that. So,
32:37
Speaker 1: bottom line, you've got two insurance companies fighting it out.
32:41
Speaker 1: One insurance company is demanding the other insurance company cough
32:46
Speaker 1: up the part they believe is owed to reinstate. Amber
32:53
Speaker 1: heard bottom line, to reimburse her pay for her attorneys.
32:58
Speaker 1: Right now, the insurance company is saying, we're not paying
33:02
Speaker 1: because what she did, the comments she made or intentional,
33:06
Speaker 1: we don't cover that. We'll cover if you get a
33:09
Speaker 1: leak under your sink, but we're not covering intentional defamatory comments.
33:15
Speaker 1: What about it, Daryl. I don't like what they're saying
33:19
Speaker 1: because if she testified as to the truth, and that's
33:23
Speaker 1: a very big if, then they have to cover her
33:27
Speaker 1: in my view. But if she lied, then that's a
33:31
Speaker 1: whole different story. If her story was the truth, then
33:35
Speaker 1: she didn't defame him. Well, clearly, the jury didn't believe it.
33:38
Speaker 1: Absolutely the jury did, but they didn't believe it because
33:41
Speaker 1: of her body language. They didn't believe it because of
33:43
Speaker 1: the way she acted in court. They didn't believe it
33:46
Speaker 1: because of what she wore. And finally about two thirds
33:49
Speaker 1: of the way through, she finally started dressing appropriately. Now
33:53
Speaker 1: she's back to the way she was. What are you
33:55
Speaker 1: talking about. What I'm talking about is body language. What
33:58
Speaker 1: I'm talking about his facial expressions. You're talking about close.
34:02
Speaker 1: It's about close, it's about her face. It's about the
34:05
Speaker 1: way she carried herself. And juries look at that, and
34:09
Speaker 1: sometimes they really pay attention just the evidence, but usually
34:13
Speaker 1: they want to see the defend that They want to
34:16
Speaker 1: see the victim. They want to see the plaintiff. They
34:19
Speaker 1: want to see exactly what's going on and feel it.
34:23
Speaker 1: And she gave an aura of being bad, and that's
34:27
Speaker 1: not good. But there also were a couple of instances
34:31
Speaker 1: where she was proven to have lied in giving evidence.
34:35
Speaker 1: She claimed that she had donated all of this money
34:38
Speaker 1: to the ACLU, and then had to backtrack on the
34:42
Speaker 1: stand and said, oh no, actually, when I said that
34:44
Speaker 1: I had donated that money, what I actually meant was
34:47
Speaker 1: that I had pledged to donate the money over time.
34:51
Speaker 1: She also claimed that Johnny Depp threw Kate Moss down
34:55
Speaker 1: the stairs, only to then be incredibly embarrassed when Kate
34:58
Speaker 1: Moss herself gave incredible one and a half minute long
35:02
Speaker 1: testimony to say that that was not the case, and
35:05
Speaker 1: actually she had fallen down and Johnny Depp had rushed
35:08
Speaker 1: to her. Aid. Now, while I appreciate that that is
35:11
Speaker 1: not necessarily Amber lying specifically about Johnny Depp abusing her,
35:16
Speaker 1: that is evidence that she lied in court. Well, that's
35:19
Speaker 1: not all that's happening in the amber her or Johnny
35:22
Speaker 1: Depp front Take a listen our cut eighty three Our
35:24
Speaker 1: friends over at e On June twenty seventh, the report's
35:27
Speaker 1: surfaced claiming the actor was working on a three hundred
35:29
Speaker 1: and one million dollar deal to reboot his iconic character
35:33
Speaker 1: Captain Jack Sparrow on screen, four years after the actor
35:36
Speaker 1: parted ways with Disney. A source tells Pop Topic the
35:39
Speaker 1: company is quote very interested in patching up their relationship
35:42
Speaker 1: with Johnny Depp, adding they are very hopeful that Johnny
35:45
Speaker 1: will forgive them and return to his iconic character. But
35:48
Speaker 1: don't fly your Skull and Crossbones flag. Jessyad Sparrow'stands, a
35:51
Speaker 1: rep for the actor, tells NBC News of the report,
35:54
Speaker 1: this is made up. That's a far cry from what
35:56
Speaker 1: we heard from Johnny Depp himself at trial. Take a
35:59
Speaker 1: listen to Dip on the stand. But it's odd that
36:03
Speaker 1: they were going to release me from my role as
36:07
Speaker 1: Captain Jack Sparrow, yet kept me on every ride across
36:11
Speaker 1: the world. In the Pirates of the Caribbean rides, I'm
36:15
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles or the Hollywood or whatever it is,
36:20
Speaker 1: three or four times Shanghai, I mean all over the world.
36:25
Speaker 1: So they didn't remove my character from the rides. They
36:29
Speaker 1: didn't stop selling merchandise of Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't
36:33
Speaker 1: stop selling dolls if Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't stop
36:36
Speaker 1: selling anything. They just didn't want there to be something
36:45
Speaker 1: trailing behind me that they'd find. And you aren't aware,
36:49
Speaker 1: you said, Pirate six in your view is dangling. You're
36:52
Speaker 1: you're not aware of if or when Pirate six will
36:55
Speaker 1: be made correct. And the fact is, mister Depp, if
37:00
Speaker 1: Disney came to you with three hundred million dollars and
37:03
Speaker 1: a million alpacas. Nothing on this earth would get you
37:07
Speaker 1: to go back and work with Disney on a Pirate
37:09
Speaker 1: of the Caribbean film for its true mister Rolandborn. You
37:13
Speaker 1: know what, I've got a very strong feeling, Charlie Lankston,
37:15
Speaker 1: that if Disney asked Depp to be Jack Sparrow again,
37:19
Speaker 1: he would do it. What's the word, Charlie, I absolutely
37:22
Speaker 1: agree with you, and I think the truth of the
37:25
Speaker 1: matter is, you know, Johnny Depp was persona non grotta
37:29
Speaker 1: in Hollywood for a number of years after all of
37:32
Speaker 1: this amber Heard stuff came out, and I think that
37:36
Speaker 1: really what he wanted from this defamation trial was not
37:40
Speaker 1: to bankrupt amber Heard. He didn't want her to give
37:43
Speaker 1: him eight million dollars. What he wanted was to restore
37:47
Speaker 1: his reputation so that he can be Hollywood Great Johnny
37:52
Speaker 1: Depp again. And I think that if Disney comes begging,
37:55
Speaker 1: and you know, comes calling, he would absolutely do one
37:59
Speaker 1: of the movies, if anything, because it serves as the
38:03
Speaker 1: ultimate piece of evidence that Johnny Depp is back, and
38:06
Speaker 1: that he should never have been cast out of Hollywood
38:09
Speaker 1: in the first place, and that his reputation is well
38:12
Speaker 1: and truly restored. Because if Disney is willing to work
38:15
Speaker 1: with him again after throwing him out of their movies,
38:18
Speaker 1: that sends a message to the world that they believe
38:20
Speaker 1: he is innocent. And you know, if the most magical
38:23
Speaker 1: place on earth is happy to back your character, then
38:26
Speaker 1: so should everyone else. What can you tell me a
38:29
Speaker 1: better debt project? Dealing with Louis the Fifteenth. So he
38:32
Speaker 1: is rumored to be working on a new Netflix backed
38:37
Speaker 1: feature film in which he will portray King Louis the fifteenth.
38:42
Speaker 1: It will be a French film. It's going to be
38:44
Speaker 1: his first French film. Obviously, he was married to a
38:48
Speaker 1: French model many years ago Vanessa Paradise, So he has
38:52
Speaker 1: a long standing connection with France. And you know, this
38:56
Speaker 1: is kind of one of those projects that could really
38:59
Speaker 1: throw him back into the mix of this generation's great
39:04
Speaker 1: kind of acting legends. And I think that that's what
39:07
Speaker 1: he wants to do. I think that he wants to
39:09
Speaker 1: get back to his first and foremost passion, and that
39:13
Speaker 1: is being in front of the cameras portraying great movie roles.
39:16
Speaker 1: And the Herd said it herself, he is a phenomenal actor.
39:20
Speaker 1: He is a brilliant actor, and that's what he wants
39:24
Speaker 1: to get back to doing well. The word is. It
39:27
Speaker 1: has not been confirmed that Netflix will stream Louis the fifteen.
39:31
Speaker 1: I believe that the working title is a Law Favorite,
39:34
Speaker 1: the Favorite, and that it will stream on Netflix fifteen
39:38
Speaker 1: months after the French theatrical release of the movie. We'll
39:42
Speaker 1: see if that happens. Of course, everybody in America wants
39:45
Speaker 1: to know will there be a Captain Jack Sparrow movie
39:51
Speaker 1: put out by Disney? But what I want to know
39:55
Speaker 1: is how this will all play out in a court
39:58
Speaker 1: of law. We ever really know after all the tape recordings,
40:04
Speaker 1: all the allegations, all the fighting, all the drinking, all
40:08
Speaker 1: the drugging, what really happened. I don't like the fact
40:13
Speaker 1: that justice has turned on its head by how somebody
40:16
Speaker 1: appears on the stand or what they wear. I want
40:20
Speaker 1: to know what really happened and what is the truth?
40:25
Speaker 1: We wait as justice some faults. Nancy Grace comes to
40:29
Speaker 1: a Sony off Goodbye. Think