Without results: Verdict of the trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard has a new date

Actor Johnny Depp in court – Photo: Shawn Thew/AFP/Getty Images

Last Friday, the jury assigned to take the legal battle between the actress Amber Heard and the American producer Johnny Depp who sued her for 50 million dollars for defamation, failed to reach a verdict about everything they have been debating for the last six weeks in Fairfax, located in Virginia, United States.

At the same time, it was found out that it will be next tuesday when they discuss again to reach an agreement where quite chilling confessions were heard from both parties. However, after several studies they not only evaluated her behavior, but also her expressions when talking about her.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by justxdepp (@justxdepp)

As revealed by EFE, they explained that the laws of the state where the trial is taking place, the fault must match either way. Let us remember that Depp’s lawsuit is for defamation, although they have taken advantage of bringing up other points that were divided into three.

The defense of the protagonist of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ pointed out that he at all times has accepted all mistakes that he came to commit at some point when he was Amber Heard’s partner and they lived as spouses.

For this reason, the lawyers explained that they have been working so that the actor can recover the “lost honor”. However, they did not want to focus on the economic issue for which he had to sue the American model.

Camille Vasquez, who has been one of the prominent lawyers for the interpreter of Willy Wonka, stated that certainly there was someone who had been a “victim of domestic violence” and that she was present at court, though it was not exactly “Miss Heard.”

“It’s simple, if you believe that Depp was abusive to Amber only once… your job is very simple,” they pleaded in court.

Ben Rottenborn, one of Heard’s lawyers, concluded his participation based on the amendment to the United States Constitution, where they explain the point of freedom of expression. Therefore, they consider that they shouldn’t condemn her for the article that arrived to write in The Washington Post.

It may interest you: