Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / SPECIAL WEEKEND CRIME STORIES UPDATE: Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: "JUROR IMPERSONATOR" BOMBSHELL RULING

Transcript

SPECIAL WEEKEND CRIME STORIES UPDATE: Johnny Depp v Amber Heard: "JUROR IMPERSONATOR" BOMBSHELL RULING · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:05
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. It was a war between
0:15
Speaker 1: the gods that no one will forget any time soon.
0:21
Speaker 1: Captain Jack Sparrow Johnny Depp versus the Star of Aquaman
0:28
Speaker 1: amber Heard. The two win at it in court, and
0:32
Speaker 1: we learn more about their relationship than we ever wanted
0:35
Speaker 1: to know, talk about dirty laundry ill seemingly, Johnny Depp
0:41
Speaker 1: won the trial right and there are millions of dollars
0:45
Speaker 1: at stake. But then amber Heard fights back, filing a
0:50
Speaker 1: demand that the jury verny, the entire trial be thrown
0:54
Speaker 1: out and insists she deserves a retrial. Why she amber
0:59
Speaker 1: Heard claims that there was an impersonator on the jury,
1:04
Speaker 1: that the wrong person showed up for jury duty. In
1:08
Speaker 1: the last hours, we obtain court documents revealing the outcome
1:14
Speaker 1: of her bid. I'n see Grace. This is Crime Stories.
1:18
Speaker 1: Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation
1:21
Speaker 1: and series X one eleven. Bombshell. Now, the trial judge
1:27
Speaker 1: denies all of amber Heard's post trial motions to have
1:32
Speaker 1: the verdict and her defamation trial thrown out. Her demand
1:39
Speaker 1: for the case to be retried after the actress claimed
1:43
Speaker 1: a juror was illegitimate has been denied again. Thank you
1:50
Speaker 1: for being with us here at Crime Stories. Court documents
1:54
Speaker 1: obtained by Crime Stories show that the trial judge has
1:58
Speaker 1: denied Herd's motion to have the verdict and the whole
2:03
Speaker 1: trial thrown out. Hurd's lawyers had filed the motion a
2:07
Speaker 1: few weeks ago on the grounds the verdict was illegitimate
2:13
Speaker 1: because a jurar had basically snuck into the process. How
2:19
Speaker 1: in the world did this happen? Amber Heard's legal team
2:24
Speaker 1: filing a motion for a mistrial and the defamation case
2:27
Speaker 1: between Hurd and her ex husband Johnny Heard lawyers alleging
2:30
Speaker 1: that Juror number fifteen was illegally selected, writing, Juror Number
2:35
Speaker 1: fifteen was not the individual summon for jury duty on
2:38
Speaker 1: April eleventh, twenty twenty two, and therefore is not part
2:41
Speaker 1: of the jury panel and could not have properly served
2:44
Speaker 1: on the jury at this trial. The request for a
2:46
Speaker 1: new trial is on the basis that Juror fifteen is
2:49
Speaker 1: fifty two years old born in nineteen seventy, while the
2:52
Speaker 1: person summoned living at the same address with the same
2:55
Speaker 1: name was born in nineteen forty five and would have
2:58
Speaker 1: been seventy seven years old at the time of the trial.
3:01
Speaker 1: It's a very tough decision for the court to make
3:03
Speaker 1: on this motion, and it's hard to see how the
3:06
Speaker 1: fact that someone was fifty two years old rather than
3:09
Speaker 1: seventy years old, how that would make a change or
3:13
Speaker 1: a difference in the ultimate verdict. Herds attorneys, writing in
3:16
Speaker 1: the motion, the fifty two year old sitting on the
3:18
Speaker 1: jury for six weeks did not appear in the list,
3:21
Speaker 1: adding it is deeply troubling for an individual not summon
3:24
Speaker 1: for jury duty nonetheless to appear for jury duty and
3:27
Speaker 1: serve on a jury, especially in a case such as this,
3:32
Speaker 1: because their case is so much more special than the
3:36
Speaker 1: rest of our cases. Okay, well that's not going down
3:39
Speaker 1: very well. I mean it. See Grace, this is Crime Stories.
3:42
Speaker 1: Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation
3:44
Speaker 1: and series XIM one eleven. What the hey, you know what,
3:49
Speaker 1: let's do a double take. Take a listen to our
3:51
Speaker 1: friends at Fox News. Eberhard's legal team filing new documents
3:54
Speaker 1: in a Virginia court on Friday, arguing that the person
3:58
Speaker 1: known as dur Number fifteen was not the person that
4:01
Speaker 1: was actually called to serve one jury duty. Hurd's lawyers
4:06
Speaker 1: saying that the person could not have properly served on
4:09
Speaker 1: the jury at this trial, and their reasoning for those
4:12
Speaker 1: claims is that the jury panel list included a seventy
4:15
Speaker 1: seven year old individual with a birth date in nineteen
4:19
Speaker 1: forty five. However, they say a fifty two year old
4:22
Speaker 1: individual who lives at the same address as the seventy
4:25
Speaker 1: seven year old was the person who actually showed up
4:28
Speaker 1: and ultimately served on the jury. And because of this
4:31
Speaker 1: mistake that they are alleging, Hurts lawyers are saying her quote,
4:34
Speaker 1: due process was therefore compromised, and under these circumstances, a
4:38
Speaker 1: mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered. Sybottom line,
4:42
Speaker 1: she's saying that this jarar, this male jar impersonated another
4:49
Speaker 1: person that was rightfully to be in the jury pool.
4:52
Speaker 1: They've got an all star panel to make sense of
4:54
Speaker 1: what we know right now. But first straight out to
4:56
Speaker 1: Charlie Langston. She's been on the case from the very beginning.
5:00
Speaker 1: She is an editor with a dailymail dot com of
5:04
Speaker 1: female fe n ai l TROLLI thank you so much
5:09
Speaker 1: for being us. So much is happening, even after we
5:12
Speaker 1: thought the case was over. What is this? I don't
5:16
Speaker 1: know that any of us thought the case was over
5:18
Speaker 1: just because they ruled a verdict. You know, it was
5:21
Speaker 1: very clear to me from the start that Amber was
5:24
Speaker 1: never going to take this verdict lying down. And this,
5:27
Speaker 1: in my mind, is just the latest in a increasingly
5:32
Speaker 1: long line of attempts being made by her legal team
5:35
Speaker 1: to try and get the verdict thrown out. This claim
5:39
Speaker 1: made by her attorneys saying that one of the people
5:43
Speaker 1: who served on the jury, one of the people who
5:45
Speaker 1: sided with Johnny Depp, was never meant to be there
5:48
Speaker 1: in the first place. But the interesting thing to me
5:51
Speaker 1: is that her lawyers have not yet said, or not
5:54
Speaker 1: yet made clear how on earth they found this information out.
5:58
Speaker 1: Now we knew that the jury who served in this trial,
6:02
Speaker 1: they were all supposed to be silent, supposed to be
6:05
Speaker 1: quiet for at least a year after the trial, and
6:09
Speaker 1: as yet we have no clue exactly how Amberhard's legal
6:12
Speaker 1: teams stumbled upon this. But the kind of you know,
6:17
Speaker 1: motion that they have filed to have this trial be
6:20
Speaker 1: ruled a mistrial comes just days after they also said that,
6:25
Speaker 1: you know, some of the evidence that was used in
6:27
Speaker 1: the trial does not support the verdict. I'm not a
6:30
Speaker 1: legal expert, but I'm sure that legal experts would agree
6:34
Speaker 1: that if you think you have an opportunity to get
6:38
Speaker 1: the verdicts thrown out or to appeal the verdict, then
6:40
Speaker 1: you should do so. But it feels slightly to me
6:43
Speaker 1: at the moment like they're just throwing stuff at the
6:45
Speaker 1: wall and hoping that something will stick. Charlie Langston, that
6:49
Speaker 1: was perfectly said. You are correct. Everyone that is either
6:54
Speaker 1: convicted or found to be libel at a civil trial
6:59
Speaker 1: has a right to appeal. That's part of our legal process.
7:04
Speaker 1: It's in the Bill of Rights where you have a
7:06
Speaker 1: right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer.
7:09
Speaker 1: Even if you can't pay for a lawyer, the state
7:11
Speaker 1: will appoint one and pay for one. You have the
7:14
Speaker 1: right to call witnesses. You have the right to cross
7:16
Speaker 1: exam the witnesses if any brought by the other side.
7:19
Speaker 1: You have a right to an appeal, and if you
7:21
Speaker 1: cannot afford an appeal, the state will also pay for
7:25
Speaker 1: an appeal for you. I mean, you know, Daryl Cohen,
7:29
Speaker 1: you know how just like roll that off the tip
7:32
Speaker 1: of my tongue. You know why, because in court when
7:35
Speaker 1: you would take a guilty plea, you had to on
7:38
Speaker 1: the record. Well, you know, I practice the front of
7:41
Speaker 1: Judge Alberson for so long, Daryl, we had to swear
7:45
Speaker 1: the defendants in that they were telling the truth, and
7:48
Speaker 1: then on the record taken down by a court reporter.
7:52
Speaker 1: Give them all of their rights, and the right to
7:55
Speaker 1: an appeal is one of those constitutional rights. I mean,
7:59
Speaker 1: of course she has the right to ask for a mistrial.
8:02
Speaker 1: I'd be just mad if she didn't. That doesn't mean
8:05
Speaker 1: anything that she's saying makes any sense. Well, I don't
8:08
Speaker 1: know if it makes sense or not, Nancy. If if
8:12
Speaker 1: this fifty two year old was there as opposed to
8:16
Speaker 1: a seventy seven year old, then I think that the
8:19
Speaker 1: jury is tainted. If that's the case of seventy seven
8:23
Speaker 1: year old will possibly look at this and hear this
8:26
Speaker 1: in a different way than a fifty two year old.
8:29
Speaker 1: Oh okay, sorry, but Daryl Cohen, I feel a moral
8:33
Speaker 1: obligation to just stop you right there, because you have
8:37
Speaker 1: struck a lot of juries like I have, like other
8:40
Speaker 1: people on this panel have, and we all know that
8:45
Speaker 1: both sides get a big, that thick print out of
8:50
Speaker 1: information on the jurars. It clearly has your dB on
8:56
Speaker 1: the print out. If they couldn't look at this guy
9:00
Speaker 1: and figure out there's a twenty five year age difference
9:03
Speaker 1: that he clearly is not seventy seven years old. That's
9:07
Speaker 1: on then, Darryl, you can't sell at trial not notice
9:15
Speaker 1: that there is a clear error and not object to it,
9:22
Speaker 1: then bring it up on appeal. If you cause the error, Daryl,
9:27
Speaker 1: you cannot sight it on appeal, as they grounds for
9:31
Speaker 1: a reversal. I agree, Nancy, But did they know. I
9:35
Speaker 1: wasn't there. I didn't see the jury list. I didn't
9:38
Speaker 1: see how well vetted they were. You know, I think
9:40
Speaker 1: they could tell it's a fifty year old man versus
9:43
Speaker 1: an eighty year old man seventy seven? Please, no, just
9:46
Speaker 1: answer that one question. I didn't ask you if you
9:49
Speaker 1: were there. I ask you if you believe they can't
9:53
Speaker 1: tell the difference and a seventy seven year old man
9:56
Speaker 1: and a fifty two year old man a twenty five
9:58
Speaker 1: year age difference just doesn't Yes, No, you don't think
10:01
Speaker 1: they could tell the difference. Yes, they can tell them.
10:04
Speaker 1: Probably wanted to hear it because when I had those
10:06
Speaker 1: GIRR questionnaires, I have a right to explain my answer,
10:10
Speaker 1: and they may you're not in court. The constitution doesn't
10:13
Speaker 1: apply to you, just fy, but my constitution does. It's mine.
10:17
Speaker 1: Go ahead, but make it brief for Pete's sake. The
10:21
Speaker 1: truth is they may not have known. And sometimes things
10:25
Speaker 1: come up that are so obvious you don't see them
10:27
Speaker 1: until suddenly something happens, and until suddenly you lose and
10:31
Speaker 1: you're desperately searching for a ground for appeal. I think
10:34
Speaker 1: it's what you meant to say. How did this happen?
10:38
Speaker 1: I believe it's a father son situation because the GIRAR
10:43
Speaker 1: that came in at age fifty two, as opposed to
10:46
Speaker 1: the GIRR that was summoned age seventy seven, both live
10:50
Speaker 1: at the same address. They both have the same ZIP code,
10:54
Speaker 1: and they have the same last name, and they're both men.
10:58
Speaker 1: It sounds like it's a senior and junior. Take a
11:01
Speaker 1: listen now to our friends at Fox Niece. This is
11:05
Speaker 1: Charles Watson. Now. The jurisdiction this motion was filed in
11:08
Speaker 1: Fairfax County, Virginia does have some sifeguards in police. To
11:12
Speaker 1: avoid something like this from happening. They require all county
11:15
Speaker 1: residents to log in with the seven digit juror number
11:19
Speaker 1: ZIP cold and birthday, but now there are questions about
11:22
Speaker 1: whether those sifeguards were used or work this time around
11:25
Speaker 1: to correctly verify the juror's identity. To Jackie Howard with
11:29
Speaker 1: Crime online dot Com, Jackie, what more do you know?
11:32
Speaker 1: The motion for a mistrial says Juror fifteen committed fraud
11:36
Speaker 1: by taking the court summons intended for his father, who
11:39
Speaker 1: shares the same name, but the judge says that's not
11:42
Speaker 1: the case. The documents state the summons issued to Jurve
11:46
Speaker 1: fifteen listed his legal name and address, but no birthdate
11:50
Speaker 1: was noted. The judge also writes that Juror fifteen was
11:53
Speaker 1: vetted by the court on the record and the parties
11:57
Speaker 1: in both sides of this case question to jury pan
12:00
Speaker 1: for a full day and informed the court that the
12:02
Speaker 1: jury panel was acceptable. Therefore due process was guaranteed. She
12:08
Speaker 1: added there was no evidence of fraud crime stories with
12:23
Speaker 1: Nancy Grace. In the last hours, we obtained court documents
12:30
Speaker 1: revealing a bombshell ruling in the case of Johnny Depp
12:33
Speaker 1: versus Amber Heard and a forty three page memorandum herds
12:38
Speaker 1: The lawyers argue the verdict and the ten million dollars
12:42
Speaker 1: in damages. She now owes Johnny Depp should be thrown
12:45
Speaker 1: out on the grounds that during the trial, Dept proceeded
12:50
Speaker 1: solely on a defamation by implication theory, and that a jurar,
12:56
Speaker 1: an illegitimate jurar, had snuck in to the courtroom and
13:02
Speaker 1: sat on the jury straight back out to Jackie Howard, Jackie,
13:08
Speaker 1: what do we know? What does this mean? Nancy? Judge
13:11
Speaker 1: Penny Escarate laid any issues or errors with the seating
13:15
Speaker 1: of this juror directly onto Amber Heard and her legal team,
13:19
Speaker 1: saying the jury list was provided five days before the
13:23
Speaker 1: trial began, and that the legal team already knew or
13:26
Speaker 1: should have known about the mistake at any time during
13:30
Speaker 1: the seven week twal. She noted that the legal team
13:33
Speaker 1: had an obligation to ensure the accuracy of the information
13:38
Speaker 1: that they were given before the trial started. According to
13:41
Speaker 1: the judge, either party cannot wait until receiving an adverse
13:45
Speaker 1: verdict to object for the first time to an issue
13:49
Speaker 1: known since the beginning of the trial. To Charlie Langston,
13:53
Speaker 1: she's been on the case from the very beginning. She
13:57
Speaker 1: is an editor with a dailymail dot com female femail troll.
14:03
Speaker 1: E've been on the case. In the very beginning, you said,
14:06
Speaker 1: it feels as if she's just throwing things out to
14:09
Speaker 1: see what if anything sticks. I mean, that's what it
14:12
Speaker 1: feels like to me, and I you know, I think
14:14
Speaker 1: it's very interesting the difference in behavior between her and
14:19
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp. Everything that has come out regarding Amber since
14:24
Speaker 1: the trial has been very negative. You know, we saw
14:29
Speaker 1: her do that Today Show interview where she rehashed all
14:32
Speaker 1: of the allegations that she had made that got her
14:36
Speaker 1: in this situation in the first place. And yet days
14:39
Speaker 1: after she was found guilty of defaming Johnny Depp, she's
14:42
Speaker 1: going on national television repeating those same defamatory claims against him.
14:47
Speaker 1: Then we've got all of this information coming out about
14:50
Speaker 1: a potential legal case that she's involved in in Australia
14:54
Speaker 1: regarding her smuggling her dogs into the country a few
14:57
Speaker 1: years ago and then lying about it. Then we've got
14:59
Speaker 1: claim that she might be writing a book. Then we've
15:02
Speaker 1: got news that her insurance company won't help her pay
15:05
Speaker 1: the defamatory charges that she has to give Johnny Depp. Meanwhile, Johnny,
15:09
Speaker 1: who arguably went into this case as something of a villain,
15:13
Speaker 1: has come out really with the most phenomenal redemption arc.
15:17
Speaker 1: He's doing music, He's going on tours of Europe, He's
15:21
Speaker 1: donating enormous amounts of money to children's hospitals around the world.
15:25
Speaker 1: He's supposedly going to be back on our screens in
15:28
Speaker 1: new movies and TV shows. It just to me really
15:33
Speaker 1: kind of lays it very bare when you look at
15:35
Speaker 1: the difference between the two of them, and for me,
15:39
Speaker 1: it seems very much like Johnny Depp is a man
15:41
Speaker 1: who wants to put this behind him get on with
15:44
Speaker 1: his life. His attorneys have suggested that he won't even
15:47
Speaker 1: make Amber pay the money that she owes him. He
15:50
Speaker 1: just wants to move on. And she very much seems
15:53
Speaker 1: as though she's a bit of a dog with a
15:55
Speaker 1: bone who will not let this rest well. If she
15:57
Speaker 1: keeps making comments about depth or part will end up
16:00
Speaker 1: getting sued again by DIP. Speaking of Amber, Heard's interviewed
16:05
Speaker 1: with Savannah Guthrie, our friend at NBC that Charlie Links
16:09
Speaker 1: had just referred to Take a listen to our cut
16:12
Speaker 1: forty This is Amber. Heard with Savannah Guthrie, our friend
16:16
Speaker 1: that I worked with a court TV wonderful person at NBC.
16:21
Speaker 1: Take a listen. I never had to instigate it. I
16:23
Speaker 1: responded to it. When you're living in violence and it
16:27
Speaker 1: becomes it becomes normal. As I testified to you have
16:32
Speaker 1: to adapt. You say you were responding, but there is evidence.
16:36
Speaker 1: There are tapes in which you acknowledge hitting. There are
16:40
Speaker 1: tapes in which you say I started the fight. I
16:43
Speaker 1: know much has been made of these audio tapes. They
16:47
Speaker 1: were first leaks online after being edited. What you would
16:52
Speaker 1: hear in those clips are not evidence of what was happening.
16:56
Speaker 1: It was evidence of a negotiation of how to talk
16:59
Speaker 1: about that. If your abuser. To John Guard, Chief WD
17:03
Speaker 1: Pitt County Sheriff's Office in Greenville, North Carolina, specializing in
17:07
Speaker 1: domestic violence cases, John Guard, that doesn't even sound that
17:11
Speaker 1: doesn't But she just said doesn't even make sense because,
17:14
Speaker 1: as you will know by getting evidence in at trial,
17:18
Speaker 1: if there is any suggestion that a tape or a
17:22
Speaker 1: video has been tampered with or edited, it is not
17:25
Speaker 1: allowed in trial. Right absolutely, and certainly through discovery you
17:29
Speaker 1: would get the entire fire thing. Not sure how that
17:34
Speaker 1: come about, Yeah, exactly, that whole thing. Charley links in
17:39
Speaker 1: with us from Delhimel dot com. Those tapes were particularly
17:45
Speaker 1: damning for Amber Heard. And this is what Hurd is
17:48
Speaker 1: telling Savannah Guthrie and their sit down interview immediately after
17:53
Speaker 1: the trial. What was that about? Effectively, Savannah Guthrie was saying,
17:58
Speaker 1: I'm behood the jury and everyone in the courtroom heard
18:02
Speaker 1: these tapes on which you could be heard making kind
18:06
Speaker 1: of violent suggestions towards Johnny Depp, saying horrible, awful things
18:12
Speaker 1: to him. And what Amberhard is saying is that actually
18:16
Speaker 1: these tapes were hours and hours and hours long, and
18:19
Speaker 1: that the jury only heard a very small select portion
18:23
Speaker 1: of them. So she was suggesting that the evidence that
18:26
Speaker 1: was used in the trial was in some way tampered with,
18:30
Speaker 1: edited whatever you want to say, in order to make
18:32
Speaker 1: her look worse. Now, again, my legal expertise is very
18:36
Speaker 1: much lacking in comparison with other brilliant people on this call. However,
18:41
Speaker 1: even I know that tampered evidence cannot be used in
18:44
Speaker 1: a courtroom, certainly not fairly. So if she's able to
18:48
Speaker 1: prove that, and if that is actually the case, that
18:51
Speaker 1: is yet another reason why she would be able to
18:54
Speaker 1: appeal the verdict. But once again, she's made this claim
18:59
Speaker 1: and we have no evidence to back it up. It's
19:01
Speaker 1: the same thing with these new claims about the fake Jura.
19:06
Speaker 1: You know, That's why I say it feels like her
19:08
Speaker 1: legal team is throwing stuff at the wall to see
19:10
Speaker 1: if it will stick, because they keep making these very
19:13
Speaker 1: sensational claims about why the trial needs to be declared
19:17
Speaker 1: a mistrial and why it needs to be redone. But
19:20
Speaker 1: we don't yet have any proof to back up any
19:23
Speaker 1: of the claims that they're making. Another issue that Trilie
19:26
Speaker 1: links and brought up rightfully claims by Heard regarding the
19:32
Speaker 1: UK trial. This almost the same issue is tried in
19:36
Speaker 1: England and there was a very different result. Long story
19:42
Speaker 1: short on that it seems as if amber Heard is claiming, Wow,
19:45
Speaker 1: UK got it right, US messed it up. I want
19:48
Speaker 1: a mistrial. Take a listen to our cut d again.
19:50
Speaker 1: This is amber Heard speaking to our France Savannah. There
19:53
Speaker 1: is another trial handled it with the same dealt with
19:57
Speaker 1: the same substitutive issues that are even more evidence and
20:00
Speaker 1: in fact mine my evidence was largely kept out, really
20:04
Speaker 1: important pieces of evidence kept out, done differently, handled differently
20:11
Speaker 1: by a judge instead of a jury. Some evidence is
20:14
Speaker 1: admissible in a UK court that is not admissible in
20:17
Speaker 1: a US court. Do you think that maybe he just
20:19
Speaker 1: had better lawyers? I will say his lawyers did certainly
20:24
Speaker 1: a better job of distracting the jury from the real issues.
20:27
Speaker 1: Kieren Start joining me high profile psychologist joining us from
20:33
Speaker 1: New York. You can find her at karen Start dot
20:35
Speaker 1: com as Karen with a C. Karen. It seems to
20:39
Speaker 1: be a suggestion by her that she wanted a judge
20:46
Speaker 1: to preside over the trial. It's referred to as a
20:50
Speaker 1: bitch trial here because the bench is a way to
20:54
Speaker 1: refer to the judge. She saves to say a judge
20:57
Speaker 1: would have been better than a jury. Well is the
21:00
Speaker 1: American way. That's how it works here. A jury of
21:04
Speaker 1: your peers correct. And what she's saying, what she seems
21:10
Speaker 1: to be saying, anyway, is that this jury would bias
21:14
Speaker 1: towards him, and that if she had a judge, the
21:17
Speaker 1: judge would be unbiased and would find her not guilty.
21:21
Speaker 1: But it all sounds so desperate, Nancy, She's really she's
21:26
Speaker 1: looking to be vindicated. It's hard to believe that her
21:31
Speaker 1: legal team would think even that it was a good
21:33
Speaker 1: idea for her to go on with Savannah Gunstree duty
21:36
Speaker 1: because she does not come across as somebody who seems
21:40
Speaker 1: to be victimized. She changes her story, she comes up
21:44
Speaker 1: with things that can't be validated, and that doesn't make
21:49
Speaker 1: her look any more believable that she gave originally in
21:52
Speaker 1: court in my opinion. You know, let's just put it
21:56
Speaker 1: to bed, Daryl Cohen, this latest claim that how she
22:00
Speaker 1: needs a mistrial because seemingly the son showed up as
22:05
Speaker 1: opposed to the father. Daryl, can we just do a
22:07
Speaker 1: lightning round Daryl Cohen joining me high profile a lawyer
22:11
Speaker 1: out of the Atlanta jurisdiction, former prosecutor felony crimes, Daryl,
22:16
Speaker 1: isn't it true that on appeal you have to show
22:19
Speaker 1: actual injury, harm, or prejudice before you get a mistrial?
22:22
Speaker 1: Absolutely lost? Isn't it also true that if there is
22:28
Speaker 1: an error at trial that you, the lawyer, could have
22:32
Speaker 1: remedied at trial, that will not be a ground for reversal.
22:39
Speaker 1: For instance, if you fail to lodge an objection to
22:43
Speaker 1: a problem at trial and then you complain about it
22:46
Speaker 1: for the first time on appeal, you're not getting a reversal.
22:49
Speaker 1: Absolutely correct. But that's if you knew or should have known.
22:52
Speaker 1: Absolutely Also, in Virginia, which includes of course Fairfax County.
22:58
Speaker 1: The voter registration, it's what is used as the jury
23:04
Speaker 1: pool that is similar across the country. They use real
23:08
Speaker 1: estate records, they use voter registration, they use prior jury lists.
23:15
Speaker 1: So would you agree that anything that had happened, Daryl Cohen,
23:21
Speaker 1: unless there had been tampering by somebody in the courthouse,
23:27
Speaker 1: that this was a mistake that the son, the younger juror,
23:32
Speaker 1: came with the same last name as the older girar.
23:35
Speaker 1: I mean, unless you want to think the County Clark
23:37
Speaker 1: has somehow tampered and thought they'd get a better result
23:40
Speaker 1: with a fifty year old versus an eighty year old.
23:43
Speaker 1: That's pretty farfetched. It's like the OJ conspiracy theory that
23:47
Speaker 1: didn't happen. No, Nancy, I agree with you. But was
23:50
Speaker 1: the age of the juror on the jury sheet that
23:55
Speaker 1: I don't know. They always have their dbes, Daryl Cohen.
24:00
Speaker 1: Always every jar print out, you meant, don't you remember
24:05
Speaker 1: there would be the name of the jurar, their dB
24:09
Speaker 1: their address to make sure they still lived in your jurisdiction,
24:13
Speaker 1: Fulton County, because that's what's for part of a jar
24:16
Speaker 1: that you're impartial, and that you live in the jurisdiction
24:20
Speaker 1: where the incident occurred. That's really all that's required. That's it,
24:24
Speaker 1: And then they're the right age. That should be the
24:27
Speaker 1: assumption to find her a lot more liabel than Johnny.
24:30
Speaker 1: People keep referring to guilty. It's liabel, and that is
24:34
Speaker 1: a possibility or maybe even a probability. The reality is
24:38
Speaker 1: a fifty two year old may not look at it
24:41
Speaker 1: the same way a seventy seven year old does. And
24:44
Speaker 1: if the person was the wrong, perfectness should well, if
24:48
Speaker 1: it's a wrong person that I think it's tainted, whether
24:51
Speaker 1: it's by design or by accident. So then wouldn't you
24:54
Speaker 1: agree that this jurar If in that jurisdiction, you can
24:58
Speaker 1: only serve on a jury if you've been a convicted felon,
25:02
Speaker 1: if you have had your voter rights reinstated, then two
25:06
Speaker 1: years after that you can then sit on a jury. So,
25:10
Speaker 1: unless this guy didn't live in the jurisdiction or was
25:14
Speaker 1: unfair or partial, that he is an appropriate member of
25:20
Speaker 1: the jury pool. Wouldn't you agree with that? Yes, if
25:24
Speaker 1: he was the person called, doesn't matter. If he was
25:26
Speaker 1: not the person, he's a suitable member for a jury pool.
25:31
Speaker 1: Have you this happened to me once I had a
25:34
Speaker 1: defense attorney. I can't remember which one it was. Now,
25:38
Speaker 1: come in all bluster, full of piss of vinegar, showing
25:41
Speaker 1: off in front of the jury and blurts out at
25:44
Speaker 1: the beginning of vodyar jury selection. I'll just take the
25:48
Speaker 1: first twelve right in front of the jury. In other words,
25:51
Speaker 1: no jury selection, no vetting, no nothing, Just take the
25:54
Speaker 1: first twelve that came in the courtroom. What could I do, Daryl,
25:58
Speaker 1: I couldn't say, no way, there could be a nun
26:01
Speaker 1: up there. I had to go along with it. I
26:03
Speaker 1: actually tried a case with the first twelve jars that
26:07
Speaker 1: walked in the room out of eighty jurards. Can you
26:10
Speaker 1: believe that that happened? There was a conviction by the way.
26:15
Speaker 1: It worked for me, but it didn't work for him.
26:17
Speaker 1: So I mean, I think you're acting as if this
26:20
Speaker 1: is some scientific formula. It's not. You get a hundred
26:24
Speaker 1: people in a courtroom and you start asking them questions
26:28
Speaker 1: and you ferret them out and bam. If they all
26:30
Speaker 1: live in the jurisdiction, if they don't have a criminal history,
26:34
Speaker 1: if they say they can be fair and impartial. They're
26:37
Speaker 1: on the jury. If they're the people that are called,
26:40
Speaker 1: I've got to tump in here, Nancy and repeat one
26:42
Speaker 1: more time. According to the court, the summons that Juror
26:46
Speaker 1: fifteen used that was intended for his father had the
26:50
Speaker 1: name and the address, but did not have a date
26:53
Speaker 1: of birth listed, so the Juror fifteen could have assumed
26:58
Speaker 1: that the summons was for him. Well, that's not all
27:01
Speaker 1: that's happening right now, Charlie Lankston gave us a little
27:04
Speaker 1: hit about more to come take a listen to our
27:06
Speaker 1: cut seventy nine. Our Forensic Crime Online reports that Amber
27:10
Speaker 1: Heard may be releasing a tell all book have been
27:12
Speaker 1: circling for weeks. Radar Online is reporting that Hurt is
27:15
Speaker 1: working on a multimillion dollar book deal following her recent
27:19
Speaker 1: legal battles. Okay magazine says the release will be a
27:22
Speaker 1: gut spelling revenge memoir. Radar also suggests that the payday
27:27
Speaker 1: is around fifteen million dollars, but could be more if
27:29
Speaker 1: the bidding war breaks out. However, confirmation of a book
27:33
Speaker 1: deal has not been made. Did I just hear the words?
27:35
Speaker 1: Charlie Lankston joining me from dalmail dot com quote gut
27:39
Speaker 1: Spilling Revenge Memoir. Did I hear that correctly? Yes you did.
27:44
Speaker 1: And honestly, she's going to get sued again. Exactly if
27:47
Speaker 1: we thought that the NBC interview was bad, imagine that,
27:51
Speaker 1: you know, over five hundred pages. It's going to be
27:54
Speaker 1: an absolute disaster. And I, you know, I really do believe. Look,
28:00
Speaker 1: I understand that she doesn't want to kind of go
28:04
Speaker 1: down without a fight, but you can't have it both ways.
28:08
Speaker 1: You can't say that you want to follow strict judicial
28:13
Speaker 1: process and that you want everything to be by the
28:16
Speaker 1: book and above board, and the jury selection needs to
28:18
Speaker 1: have been verified and all of that kind of stuff.
28:21
Speaker 1: But then, on the other hand, having just been found
28:25
Speaker 1: guilty of defamation, you can't then go on TV and
28:30
Speaker 1: repeat these defamatory allegations. You can't then pen a gut
28:34
Speaker 1: spilling Revenge memoir once again rehashing all of these defamatory allegations.
28:39
Speaker 1: You have to play the game one way or another,
28:42
Speaker 1: and at the moment, she's trying to do both things,
28:45
Speaker 1: and it is just portraying her in the most negative light.
28:50
Speaker 1: And while I understand that the court of public opinion
28:53
Speaker 1: is not the one that rules in you know in
28:56
Speaker 1: the courtroom. It certainly is going to impact her in
28:59
Speaker 1: a few chair. This kind of behavior is going to
29:03
Speaker 1: destroy her career, But in my opinion, the rest of
29:06
Speaker 1: her life. I do not believe that anyone will hire
29:09
Speaker 1: her to be in a movie again, to be in
29:11
Speaker 1: a TV show again. Her reputation at this point is
29:14
Speaker 1: destroyed to beyond any hope of you know, kind of
29:18
Speaker 1: improving it ever again. In my opinion, boy, do I
29:21
Speaker 1: disagree there, Champion, You're more than mom. Completely disagree. The
29:25
Speaker 1: more the more grief he gives, the more people want
29:28
Speaker 1: to see her, the more she's going to get a
29:31
Speaker 1: film two or ten because they want to see this
29:34
Speaker 1: evil Amber heard. It's all about the box, Charlie, has
29:38
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the reality of the life. You know,
29:40
Speaker 1: Daryl Cohen, you're functioning under the I think it was
29:43
Speaker 1: the Barnum Bailey theory of pr I don't care what
29:46
Speaker 1: you say about it, just talk about me. So yeah,
29:48
Speaker 1: I hear that school of thought. To Jan Guard, chief
29:51
Speaker 1: Deputy County Sheriff's Office in Greenville, North Carolina, you like I,
29:56
Speaker 1: have represented battered women, your whole line, your whole career.
30:02
Speaker 1: You have specialized investigating domestic violence cases. I prosecuted almost
30:09
Speaker 1: gosh one hundred percent of the time a male perpetrating
30:13
Speaker 1: on a female in domestic abuse or domestic homicide as
30:16
Speaker 1: it is coined, and were the hot line the Batter
30:20
Speaker 1: Women Center hotline at night for nine years as a
30:23
Speaker 1: volunteer John guard. What happened to Amber Heard's case, because
30:31
Speaker 1: typically you don't have pictures of bruises, you don't have
30:35
Speaker 1: any kind of corroboration. It's her word against his word
30:39
Speaker 1: or maybe a cop that shows up on the scene.
30:42
Speaker 1: What went wrong and what was seemingly a slam dunk
30:46
Speaker 1: case for Amber Heard because buddy, it went side place. Yeah,
30:50
Speaker 1: I'm not sure absolutely some things you may have fallen
30:56
Speaker 1: through the cracks as you're going through. This is why
30:59
Speaker 1: I say I'm just blessed to be in the criminal
31:03
Speaker 1: side of the courts where we deal with guilt and
31:06
Speaker 1: innocence versus liable or not liable. But you know, having
31:10
Speaker 1: law enforcement involved in being able to bring an impartial
31:14
Speaker 1: group of individuals who have actually done the investigation certainly
31:18
Speaker 1: would would help. That's why, just like you, you know,
31:21
Speaker 1: we always encourage people to reach out for help. And
31:25
Speaker 1: one of those reasons is you're bringing in impartial people
31:29
Speaker 1: into the cycle, into the loop, that can you know,
31:33
Speaker 1: grab information that can be potentially later used as evidence.
31:38
Speaker 1: But we didn't really have that here. I know there
31:41
Speaker 1: was a call we'll hold on Charlie Langston joining me
31:43
Speaker 1: from tellingmall dot com. It's I recall several cops showed
31:48
Speaker 1: up to herd and Depth's apartment on one of these incidents,
31:52
Speaker 1: and I believe they testified they did not see any
31:56
Speaker 1: size of battering on ever heard. That is correct. Multiple people,
32:00
Speaker 1: including these police officers, testified to say that they never
32:03
Speaker 1: saw any evidence of bruising or anything like that on
32:06
Speaker 1: Amber heard, and that all of the injuries that she
32:10
Speaker 1: was seen displaying when she went to the courtroom to
32:13
Speaker 1: get a restraining order against him, that that was actually
32:17
Speaker 1: the only instance where she was ever seen with any
32:20
Speaker 1: evidence of physical violence towards her. And that was tainted
32:24
Speaker 1: because evidence came in from a producer at TMZ that
32:28
Speaker 1: either she or someone in her camp had tipped them
32:31
Speaker 1: off to come to the courthouse when she was going
32:34
Speaker 1: to get a troo against Johnny Depp, and that she
32:36
Speaker 1: would be standing in the doorway and she would turn
32:39
Speaker 1: her face a certain way so they could get a
32:41
Speaker 1: picture the bruise, so bruise or no bruise that tainted
32:48
Speaker 1: the entire episode Clime stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, we
33:10
Speaker 1: have obtained court documents where the trial judge in this
33:14
Speaker 1: case has denied amber Heard's claims and arguments to have
33:19
Speaker 1: the entire trial thrown out. Now, let me advise you
33:23
Speaker 1: of something. The first step in an appeals process is
33:28
Speaker 1: to go to the trial judge and say, hey, there
33:33
Speaker 1: was a screw up in the trial. It's very rare
33:36
Speaker 1: that a trial judge who has been sitting there presiding
33:39
Speaker 1: over the entire trial doing what he or she thinks
33:42
Speaker 1: was best, is going to reverse themselves. That's pretty rare. Okay,
33:49
Speaker 1: to say, oh, yeah, I screwed up. I had a
33:52
Speaker 1: huge error in the trial. Let's just start over. That's
33:55
Speaker 1: not going to happen, okay. Once the motion for new
33:58
Speaker 1: trial has been adjudicated by the trial judge, then the
34:05
Speaker 1: loser and trial appeals to an appellate court. So this
34:08
Speaker 1: is basically step one and what's going to be a
34:11
Speaker 1: very long process. I've got a pretty good idea of
34:14
Speaker 1: why she's doing it. Take a listen to our cut
34:17
Speaker 1: eighty one our forensic crime online. TMZ reports that Amberhard's
34:22
Speaker 1: latest battle is with her insurance company. The Aquaman actress
34:27
Speaker 1: reportedly wants to use a one million dollar liability policy
34:30
Speaker 1: with New York Maine and General insurance company, which covers
34:34
Speaker 1: defamation and other forms of wrongdoing, but the insurance company
34:37
Speaker 1: does not want to pay. TMZ reports the insurance company
34:41
Speaker 1: claims that, according to California law, they don't have to
34:44
Speaker 1: pay because Hurd committed a willful and malicious act of
34:48
Speaker 1: misconduct by defaming the Pirates of the Caribbean actor New
34:52
Speaker 1: York Maine is asking for a ruling from the judge,
34:55
Speaker 1: saying just that. So, bottom line, you've got two insurance
34:58
Speaker 1: companies fighting at out. One insurance company is demanding the
35:03
Speaker 1: other insurance company cough up the part they believe is
35:09
Speaker 1: owed to reinstate Amber Heard, bottom line, to reimburse her
35:15
Speaker 1: or pay for her attorneys. Right now. The insurance company
35:19
Speaker 1: is saying, we're not paying because what she did, the
35:22
Speaker 1: comments she made or intentional, we don't cover that. We'll
35:27
Speaker 1: cover if you get a leak under your sink, but
35:30
Speaker 1: we're not covering intentional defamatory comments. What about it? Daryl,
35:35
Speaker 1: I don't like what they're saying because if she testified
35:41
Speaker 1: as to the truth, and that's a very big if,
35:44
Speaker 1: then they have to cover her in my view. But
35:49
Speaker 1: if she lied, then that's a whole different story. If
35:52
Speaker 1: her story was the truth, then she didn't defame him. Well,
35:56
Speaker 1: clearly the jury didn't believe it. Absolutely the jury didn't.
35:59
Speaker 1: But they didn't believe it because of her body language.
36:01
Speaker 1: They didn't believe it because of the way she acted
36:04
Speaker 1: in court. They didn't believe it because of what she wore.
36:07
Speaker 1: And finally about two thirds of the way through, she
36:10
Speaker 1: finally started dressing appropriately. Now she's back to the way
36:14
Speaker 1: she was. What are you talking about? What I'm talking
36:16
Speaker 1: about his body language, what I'm talking about his facial expressions.
36:20
Speaker 1: You're talking about close. It's about close, it's about her face.
36:24
Speaker 1: It's about the way she carried herself. And juries look
36:27
Speaker 1: at that, and sometimes they really pay attention just in
36:31
Speaker 1: the evidence, but usually they want to see the defendant.
36:35
Speaker 1: They want to see the victim, they want to see
36:38
Speaker 1: the plaintiff. They want to see exactly what's going on
36:41
Speaker 1: and feel it. And she gave an aura of being bad,
36:46
Speaker 1: and that's not good. But there also were a couple
36:50
Speaker 1: of instances where she was proven to have lied in
36:53
Speaker 1: giving evidence. She claims that she had donated all of
36:57
Speaker 1: this money to the ACLU, and then to backtrack on
37:01
Speaker 1: the stand and said, oh no, actually, when I said
37:04
Speaker 1: that I had donated that money, what I actually meant
37:06
Speaker 1: was that I had pledged to donate the money over time.
37:10
Speaker 1: She also claimed that Johnny Depp threw Kate Moss down
37:14
Speaker 1: the stairs, only to then be incredibly embarrassed when Kate
37:18
Speaker 1: Moss herself gave incredible one and a half minute long
37:22
Speaker 1: testimony to say that that was not the case, and
37:24
Speaker 1: actually she had fallen down and Johnny Depp had rushed
37:27
Speaker 1: to her. Aid. Now, while I appreciate that that is
37:30
Speaker 1: not necessarily Amber lying specifically about Johnny Depp abusing her,
37:35
Speaker 1: that is evidence that she lied in court. Well, that's
37:39
Speaker 1: not all that's happening in the amber her or Johnny
37:41
Speaker 1: Depp front take a list of our cut eighty three,
37:43
Speaker 1: our friends over at e On June twenty seventh, the
37:46
Speaker 1: reports surfaced claiming the After was working on a three
37:48
Speaker 1: hundred and one million dollar deal to reboot his iconic
37:51
Speaker 1: character Captain Jack Sparrow. On screen four years after the
37:55
Speaker 1: actor parted ways with Disney. A source tells Pop Topic
37:58
Speaker 1: the company is quote very interested in patching up their
38:01
Speaker 1: relationship with Johnny Depp, adding they are very hopeful that
38:04
Speaker 1: Johnny will forgive them and return to his iconic character.
38:07
Speaker 1: But don't fly your skull and Crossbones flag, Jess Yet
38:10
Speaker 1: Sparrell stands. A rep for the actor tells Nbcnews of
38:12
Speaker 1: the report, this is made up. That's a far cry
38:15
Speaker 1: from what we heard from Johnny Depp himself at trial.
38:18
Speaker 1: Take a listen to Depp on the stand. But it's
38:21
Speaker 1: odd that they were going to release me from my
38:26
Speaker 1: role as Captain Jack Sparrow, yet kept me on every
38:29
Speaker 1: ride across the world. In the Pirates of the Caribbean rides,
38:34
Speaker 1: I'm in Los Angeles or the Hollywoe or whatever it is,
38:40
Speaker 1: three or four times Shanghai, I mean all over the world.
38:44
Speaker 1: So they didn't remove my character from the rides. They
38:48
Speaker 1: didn't stop selling merchandise of Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't
38:52
Speaker 1: stop selling dolls of Captain Jack Sparrow. They didn't stop
38:56
Speaker 1: selling anything. They just want there to be something trailing
39:05
Speaker 1: behind me that they'd find and you aren't aware. You
39:09
Speaker 1: said Pirate six in your view is dangling. You're you're
39:12
Speaker 1: not aware of if or when Pirate six will be
39:15
Speaker 1: made correct. And the fact is, mister Depp, if Disney
39:20
Speaker 1: came to you with three hundred million dollars and a
39:22
Speaker 1: million alpacas, nothing on this earth would get you to
39:26
Speaker 1: go back and work with Disney on a pirate of
39:29
Speaker 1: the Caribbean films, true, mister Rodenbourne. You know what, I've
39:32
Speaker 1: got a very strong feeling, Charlie Lankston, that if Disney
39:35
Speaker 1: asked Depp to be Jack Sparrow again, he would do it.
39:39
Speaker 1: What's the word, Charlie, I absolutely agree with you, And
39:43
Speaker 1: I think the truth of the matter is, you know,
39:46
Speaker 1: Johnny Depp was persona non grotta in Hollywood for a
39:50
Speaker 1: number of years after all of this Ambahad stuff came out.
39:54
Speaker 1: And I think that really what he wanted from this
39:57
Speaker 1: defamation trial was not to bankrupt Amber heard. He didn't
40:01
Speaker 1: want her to give him eight million dollars. What he
40:04
Speaker 1: wanted was to restore his reputation so that he can
40:09
Speaker 1: be Hollywood great Johnny Depp again. And I think that
40:13
Speaker 1: if Disney comes begging, and you know, comes calling he
40:17
Speaker 1: would absolutely do one of the movies, if anything, because
40:21
Speaker 1: it serves, as you know, the ultimate piece of evidence
40:24
Speaker 1: that Johnny Depp is back and that he should never
40:27
Speaker 1: have been cast out of Hollywood in the first place,
40:30
Speaker 1: and that his reputation is well and truly restored. Because
40:33
Speaker 1: if Disney is willing to work with him again after
40:35
Speaker 1: throwing him out of their movies, that sends a message
40:38
Speaker 1: to the world that they believe he is innocent. And
40:41
Speaker 1: you know, if the most magical place on earth is
40:43
Speaker 1: happy to back your character, then so should everyone else.
40:47
Speaker 1: What can you tell me? I'm better dept. Project dealing
40:50
Speaker 1: with Louis the Fifteenth. So he is rumored to be
40:53
Speaker 1: working on a new Netflix backed feature film in which
40:58
Speaker 1: he will portray King Louis the fifteenth. It will be
41:01
Speaker 1: a French film. It's going to be his first French film. Obviously,
41:06
Speaker 1: he was married to a French model many years ago,
41:10
Speaker 1: Vanessa Paradise, so he has a long standing connection with France.
41:14
Speaker 1: And you know, this is kind of one of those
41:17
Speaker 1: projects that could really throw him back into the mix
41:21
Speaker 1: of this generation's great kind of acting legends. And I
41:26
Speaker 1: think that that's what he wants to do. I think
41:28
Speaker 1: that he wants to get back to his first and
41:31
Speaker 1: foremost passion, and that is being in front of the
41:33
Speaker 1: cameras portraying great movie roles. And the Herd said it herself.
41:38
Speaker 1: He is a phenomenal actor. He is a brilliant actor,
41:42
Speaker 1: and that's what he wants to get back to doing. Well.
41:45
Speaker 1: The word is. It has not been confirmed that Netflix
41:48
Speaker 1: will stream Louis the fifteen. I believe that the working
41:51
Speaker 1: title is La Favorite, The Favorite, and that it will
41:56
Speaker 1: stream on Netflix fifteen months after the French theatrical release
42:00
Speaker 1: of the movie. We'll see if that happens. Of course,
42:03
Speaker 1: everybody and America wants to know will there be a
42:08
Speaker 1: Captain Jack Sparrow movie put out by Disney? But what
42:13
Speaker 1: I want to know is how this will all play out.
42:17
Speaker 1: Is the Amber Heard versus Johnny Depp trial over? Well, yes,
42:22
Speaker 1: for now anyway. In the latest courtroom twist and turn,
42:26
Speaker 1: the trial judge has denied Amber Heard's request demand for
42:31
Speaker 1: a brand new trial, including her claim that there was
42:34
Speaker 1: a juror impersonator. I'd like to say it's all over.
42:39
Speaker 1: I've got a funny feeling she'll be back. Fancy Gray's
42:44
Speaker 1: Crime Stories signing off goodbye,