Chinese (Simplified)English

Celebrity Lawyer Analyzes Johnny Depp’s Defamation Jury Trial

[Source: Court TV]

Celebrity Lawyer Christopher C. Melcher Analyzes Johnny Depp’s Defamation Jury Trial

 

We have with us Christopher C. Melcher, celebrity lawyer of Walzer Melcher LLP-which is ranked as a best family law firm in California… Johnny Depp, testifying in front of a judge over in the UK versus seven citizens from Fairfax County, Virginia. I think it’s a big difference, a much, much different dynamic.

(00:29): “Well, it is, is a much different dynamic. I mean, lawyers and judges are used to analyzing things. I think that the jury in our country is this system of justice that helps equalize things … He does have an advantage with a jury rather than a judge. Also in England, Amber Heard was not a party. So she was called as a witness, but here she’s a party and there’s a lot more latitude that Johnny has in this case because she’s a party. He’s able to develop more evidence in this case than he was previously,” stated the top family law attorney.

Reporter (01:11): … So she’ll be in the courtroom. So as Johnny is testifying about her, the jury can not only observe Johnny Depp, but will observe her reactions as well. Uh, to me, this is so different and because ultimately, I think it comes down to who does the jury like and believe is it her, or is it him?

Carol (01:40): …Winona Rider and Vanessa Parody both said that when they were in relationships with him, he wasn’t abusive…

Reporter (03:18): … Johnny Depp’s been through this once already… How would you look at doing this a second time? “… We’ve seen when we’ve had to do retrials that they come out differently. People testify, you do get some training when you have trial one and go into trial two. Johnny was a great witness I thought based on accounts from the English case. When asked if he had an anger management problem because he got angry this one day and he replied, well, ‘sometimes I burst out with laughter-it doesn’t mean I have a humor problem.’ I agree with what you mentioned about cleaning up the image a little bit. …With criminal defendants, we get them out of the jail blues and we put him into a suit. It’s harder when you say to a celebrity you might want to change your hair… But as lawyers, we should be having that conversation with our clients, whether they like it or not,” stated Chris Melcher, a California celebrity divorce lawyer.

Reporter (04:42): Wouldn’t the jury see through that a little bit, because when criminal defendants in trials, we cover clean themselves up, the jury doesn’t know who they are, so they don’t know what they looked like when they committed the murder. Everyone knows kind of what Johnny Depp is like.

Carol (05:11): …Not that he should come in with a military haircut but with his hair loose and long and his rugged mustache and so on, he looks a little bit like a wild man. So you could kind of picture some of the things that Amber is trying to say and how she’s trying to make him look…

Reporter (15:26): I want to go back to the Elon Musk issue. Christopher C. Melcher, who is a top family law attorney and former criminal defense attorney, what do you think – does Elon Musk make an appearance, whether it’s via WebEx or however, uh, to come to support Amber heard, and how much of an impact would the world’s richest man have on this jury?

(15:59): “I can’t imagine why he would want to have any part of this. I think there’s a difference between offering paramour, some security when he is in a dating relationship with her (if that’s what happened) versus after the fact coming in and testifying. This would not help him. I don’t know why he would want to do it. Generally, you can’t compel a nonresident to come testify in a state trial. So, he may be outside the subpoena power of the court. But, if he did come to help, it would be significant because she would only call him if he had something helpful to say, and it would be about her fear.” Christopher Melcher, ranked as one of the best family law attorneys, replied “And all she really has to show is that she was in an abusive relationship. Whatever the jury thinks is an abusive relationship (and we have a broad definition of abuse- not just physical violence)… Then that makes her oped piece true. And that means he loses defamation trial…”

©2022 Court TV. No claims made to copyrighted material.

Aired 4/15/22.