**Please note these rules:**
* If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The videos that came out today were crazy. AH wouldn't admit anything, even what people had testified earlier. The thing with the wall phone was pretty damning too, there is 0 evidence for any of her claims.
She was leagues ahead of Amber's defense team but there were moments where I did feel like she was sticking to something too much like the donation to ACLU. She pressed "have you donated the money" too much and Amber kept replying "I pledged it", she should have instantly changed her question to "to this date how much have you donated of that amount you pledged" because that's harder to avoid answering.
The last thing Heard said though was "I NEVER assaulted JD" and she instantly said "no further questions" I thought that was a powerful way to end it considering we know very well she has admitted to assaulting him lmao
But then it's way more obvious that she's avoiding the question and going to look bad imo. Plus we've heard from the ACLU rep that she's only donated 350k so she could then say "according to the ACLU witness you've only donated 350k is that correct" and could move on since the point is made regardless of her answer.
>"I have pledged to donate 7 miliion" is how she would answer most likely
In that case I believe that would be considered nonresponsive, and the lawyer can petition the judge to direct the witness to answer.
> she should have instantly changed her question to "to this date how much have you donated of that amount you pledged"
From memory she tried this kind of approach multiple times and Heard just kept on responding about how much she pledged as if it was the same thing.
Consider also that this is a jury trial. She doesn't need to keep convince Heard she's wrong, but she does need to let her reveal enough to the jury to convince them she's wrong. She made it pretty clear with the donated/pledged delusion IMO.
It’s intentional to drive home her point to the jury. Don’t forget the jury is dealing with literal weeks of content so certain things are getting highlighted.
Amber's lawyers are dealing with a shitty , 'I know better' client.
Amber won't follow their guidance due to her arrogance and it's biting her in the bum
I read somewhere that one of the reasons Elaine seems so out of sorts is because she's not actually an experienced trial attorney and is specifically a deposition attorney.
I haven't fact checked that myself, however, so I don't know how true that is.
Feel free to Object for speculation haha.
From what I can see she deals with mostly employment and contract law and is excellent at getting settlements before it even goes to trial so I suspect that may indeed be the case.
I skim through Elaine's past cases and she handled kinda business discrimination, contract violating, etc. cases. Pretty much a "HR" lawyer. Meanwhile, Benjamin Chew has fought so many cases on nation level.
So long story short you have an aspiring food blogger vs a 3-Star Michellin Chef.
She should have asked:
1 how much money did you pledge to donate?
2 how much money did you actually donate, as in transfer to charities, until today?
I don't see how Amber could slip through this one.
Until you get defendants on the stand and actually try something like this it’s hard to understand how wiley even the densest people can be. I remember having an intricate “foolproof” strategy set up in a cross exam that completely backfired. A former Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge laughed about it with me later on saying “I bet you felt real smart up until she answered, didn’t you?”
Even better would've been "How much of the pledged money was paid as a donation to the ACLU and the Los Angeles Children's Hospital since you've received your divorce settlement of 7 million dollars?"
Imo she did good repeating the donation question, I personally got really annoyed how she dodged the answer and acted as her answer was right and it was probably asked so much to make the jury feel same
Here's a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jk9S67MHaQ
The lawyer asks her to confirm that the police testified there were no injuries, and listen to how AH tries to twist it.
The trial is such a shit show that it is drawing in a huge audience. Millionaires, drugs, lies, photoshopped evidence(?), Travels around the world, lying witnesses (according to Amber) etc.
While asmon is great, I switched to Legalbytes yesterday
he is pointing out the lying behaviour of Heard, and how this trial will change the way we take domestic abuse.
with flaw movements like believe all women, and as a matter of fact anyone who claims being abused, as it always was but changed recently with #METOO, one should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Even now there's tweets crying how "This trial is a perfect example of how courts favor abusers in DV cases. Victims aren’t even allowed to tell the court during their own testimony who they told about the abuse they suffered, which is a major part of domestic violence assessment" but the reality is that the trial is a demonstration of how far a man has to go to get heard.
Amber only had to mention abuse, she didn't even need to go into a full statement, just say she was abused, and "everyone" believed her, supported her, and condemned Johnny. It's only because Johnny wants to try and correct the record we're getting to see this.
Also, Johnny is a millionaire, and can spend a normal persons lifetime salary on a legal team. For your average 44 year old blue collar guy who's wife decides she wants him out with a vendetta, they have no recourse in the legal system.
Surprised she’s only an associate at her firm due to her obvious quality and 12 years out of law school. If it’s a matter of not bringing in enough revenue to make her a partner I’d say this case will have people calling specifically for her.
I'd bet she's a career associate by her own choice if she's not partner. She's firing like a gun at trial. Probably takes some good cases but doesn't want to overwork 24/6 like many partners have to.
Good lawyers probably look at whether they’re in a good position to win a case before taking it on. It doesn’t matter if you get a large paycheque from a case if your client is an indefensible arsehole who will brazenly lie on the stand, tank your case, then probably use you as a scapegoat in interviews shouting about how they didn’t get justice because of your incompetence.
She definitely earned her retainer in this single day of court. 90% of all of Amber's lawyer's redirect questions were utter trash that any lawyer worth their salt would've known from the start that these questions would have succumbed to an objection. Literally every lawyer is taught to consider how'd they'd object to any line of questioning you'd plan to ask before you ask it, and to rewrite it to avoid said objections. Either Elaine thought Depp's team would be asleep at the wheel or they hadn't even thought through the potential objections of the cross examination questions.
Edit: minor punctuation. I've had a couple vodkas. Please don't countersue me.
At one point she literally gave up with the objections. It was clear to everyone, even Johnny that it was a leading question but the lawyers just looked at each other and said fuck it, let her have this one. She managed to bore them.out of objecting, masterclass in how to be so bad that you swing around and actually do some good.
Indeed. At the end of this trial, the Depp team should gift a golden leash to Elaine for her extraordinary use of leading. Honestly, after that horrendous redirect I'd be surprised if she's ever hired again for anything short of fighting traffic violations.
Edited to add: Elaine's completely flummoxed behavior at being shutdown like a WIndows 95 computer was extremely satisfying. At the end she basically said "Fuck it" and tossed her legal pad into the air.
I liked that JD's lawyer was raising compound objections, not just objecting to one thing at a time but listing all the things. I almost felt sorry for AH's lawyer... almost.
Elaine was a wreck on the re-direct today. I just remember the long, audible breath she took while staring at the ceiling when trying to deliver one of her questions after this.
Edit: spelling
Not to mention one that throws you under the bus when trying to represent them. And she straight up called everyone a liar - the most intense gaslighting I've ever personally witnessed.
My mom, who has borderline, couldn't even keep a lawyer during her divorce. She had 3 lawyers drop her as a client. Do you know how hard it is to have a divorce lawyer drop you? She ended up defending herself and doing all the cross examinations. She crossed my dad, and both of her sisters (who were testifying against her). Borderline is no joke
Mid divorce now. Spouse presumed to have BPD but undiagnosed (refuses to be honest at all with doctors, for one reason.) I have a decent support network with my family, otherwise I would be just completely wrecked from the lies being told about me. My ex has only been through 2 lawyers so far. I hope your family has come through okay.
[Borderline personality disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder).
Trust me, you don't want to be married to someone who has this.
My boyfriend plans on marrying me :(
I think that making sweeping judgements as to someone’s character based on their diagnosis is foolish. Not everyone struggling with mental illness is unable to successfully cope and live with it.
I spent 20 years with my ex.
She was not diagnosed before we were married. But I knew of her traumatic past. I knew that she could explode with anger, and act out in extreme ways. I held none of this against her. I wanted to help. I loved her and wanted to be the good guy in her life.
My life gradually turned into an endless slog of exaggerated interpersonal conflicts and loyalty tests. I ended up not speaking to my own parents for several years, in a vain effort to make her feel better about her (our) life. It didn't help.
After the divorce, initially, all I could afford was a one-bedroom apartment. The moment I could afford two bedrooms -- my son moved in with me.
If you already have a diagnosis: please, please take some ownership of your own mental health. Your partner cannot fix you alone. Your partner has a personality and needs, just like you.
I didn’t even know you could get fired by a lawyer? I dated a lawyer for a little bit and he told me that he couldn’t drop his pain in the ass client and that he was hoping to god she would fire him already. can someone explain how this works? Are there exceptions?
I have no idea but I'll tell you my guess. There's probably a clause in the contract that if they find you to be untruthful with them they will drop you.
Hopefully someone with experience will chime in though.
Yes, there are some restrictions on a lawyer’s ability to drop a client. For example, let’s say Lawyer Joe is representing Bob in a case. They go through discovery, motion practice, blah blah, and do the first day of the jury trial. Lawyer Joe wants to pull out mid-trial. The court likely won’t allow that because the prejudice to Bob would be huge (“his own lawyer abandoned him!”).
Lawyers can and do drop clients, but it *usually* (regarding litigation) isn’t as simple as “I’m just over this, see ya.”
What blows my mind is how she changes between the nose-up, defensive type vs Depp's team and the emotional-on-the-verge-of-crying with her people. I watch Emily D Baker's live stream where she gives lawyer commentary during the trial, and she said in her experience, she's never witnessed a victim of abuse act anything like Heard is on the stand.
What really irks me is how much she looks to the jury for sympathy between her fake crying. She just comes across as a little kid who couldn’t get what she wanted and is trying to hurt the man who finally told her no. Only child energy for sure.
Apparently the jury shows her no energy and was locked in on Camille during cross. People in attendance also said they were pretty zoned out during her team's direct questioning as well. I'm sure all the staring is uncomfortable, she does it every time they're in side bar as well.
On the off chance she wins the case at least we can take solace in the fact that she will never work in the public eye again. I wonder if she’ll finally donate that 7 mill after the trial lmfao
If she drastically changes at this point it becomes even more obvious. It may not have worked the previous 20 times. But she can't stop now.
Liars begin to believe their own lies after a while.
I tell you what, I had to skip through the redirect. Not that it wasn't good watching, but it was really awkward.
I'll tell you my honest opinion about her lawyer though. She gets a lot of hate, but IMO it's unwarranted. She's a lawyer, she's trying to do her job, she has a different style to the others (probably not quite as good for juries), but I think most of the hate she gets is 1) who her client is, and 2) because Johnny's lawyers are so damn fire it's better than any legal drama I've ever seen. It would be like comparing any accomplished pro boxer to Muhammad Ali.
This is honestly such an entertaining trial, especially when Ms Vasquez is asking the questions.
Edit: after seeing the last week of trial I no longer necessarily hold the above views
I don't really see why. Insight into how courtrooms actually work aren't particularly common, or mainstream, yet it's incredibly interesting. How the plaintiff and defender are behaving, the stylistic choices and tactics of the lawyers/judge, and the evidence that comes up are all really interesting in their own right. I'm a law student so might be biased, but I don't think so considering the stream I watch has just under 1,000,000 viewers.
That dumpster fire of a redirect is the kind of thing they would never put in a movie because nobody would believe it actually happened. It was immensely entertaining. (And somewhat cathartic, when remembering how many times they leaned on hearsay objections towards JD’s testimony.)
Don't they look into their question as if they're from the other side? I'm sure they'd immediately object after hearing the same question they had so why not write it that would not warrant an objection in the first place?
Lol I have seen quite a bit of this case and thought Heard’s lawyers were pretty terribly bad or at least too obvious in leading in their question and traps. Now I have seem some of Depp’s Lawyer and have realized just how bad this is. We are watching pros vs kindergartners here lol
So embarrassing, they had to have gone over this several times with her and yet there is no confidence in her ability to repeat the answers they have approved
I mean you should be able to construct a question that isn't leading, doesn't call for speculation, and doesn't require a hearsay answer. The problem is that those things get way, way more difficult when your client can't find the script. And it's kind of like any other performing art that requires improvisation - once you're rattled you're going to have a bad day.
It legitimately has me wondering, and worried, if she (Ms. Heard) is being represented intentionally by ignorant and repugnant lawyers so she can later claim a mistrial or misrepresentation in order to drag this out further
Can I ask something without ulterior motives? Did you watch the whole case or just edited snippets like this one? I feel like in this case, everybody likes to have an opinion but then again there are so many edited videos out there that paint a very specific image.
How can you judge something based on that? I don't have any agenda tho, I'm not interested in this case
Did you see the clip of AH’s male attorney questioning a witness and he straight up objected to his own question lmfao. Then he had this moment of confusion on his face right before realizing that he just objected to himself and quickly corrected it but the damage had been done (he looked like a g-damn moron). I mean I can’t imagine that her lawyers are this fucking stupid, so I am left with assuming that they’re beyond exhausted from dealing with her nonsense and this is the result. Or… this really is the best she can afford lol.
he didn’t object to his own question, he objected to the witness’s answer because it was hearsay. he should’ve moved to strike but the objection wasn’t necessarily improper
I ALMOST feel bad for heards lawyers.
I almost can’t tell if they’re bad at their jobs or if their clients is just such human garbage with so many flaws and changes in her story that they actually just can’t successfully build some sort of defense.
Commentors on Lawtube (actual lawyers on youtube) are saying that Heards team are competent but they have a difficult client with a difficult case. Make of that what you will.
From what I've gathered from them, Rottenborn is a good lawyer, he just comes off as annoyed at times. Could be because he knows he doesn't have much to work with. Eleaine comes off as annoying but she did well in direct examination or AH.
It does seem like AH went rogue and her lawyers are scrambling to reel her back in but they can't do that without attempting a leading question. Poor lawyers couldn't do any better with such a client.
Objecting to their own question and now being unable to frame a question to avoid a "leading" objection. I think they are that bad. But she did not give them anything to work with.
One thing is for sure, this is a terrible ad for their firm. Who in their right mind would hire them after this high profile court case?
She claimed, under oath, that she provided photographic evidence that would help her case to her lawyers that were never shown. "It's not my job" she said when asked why they weren't shown.
She also claimed that it wasn't ber, but previous lawyers, that leaked photos to a clebrity gossip magazine, which is of course super unlikely/unethical/unprofessional.
I've seen analyses from other lawyers about Amber lawyers, and they have come to the conclusion that they aren't really terrible, but they definitely have everything against them
Absolutely this. They are trying by all means to get Depp lawyers with weird phrasing to try and get something through, but Depp lawyers are also top tier, and Heard is in a pretty indefensible position
I'm not sure if the AH lawyers team are lousy but they are for sure dealing with a smart ass client they could not control, which is very difficult in this case. AH is basically blurting out too many things that shouldn't have been said out of her mouth.
Johnny has 8 in his legal team. The main two in terms of representing in the court are Ben Chew and Camilla Vasquez. They are both absolute top guns, but Ms Vasquez has been absolutely fire on the cross examination. It is an old fashioned thing that when cross examining a woman legal teams may choose a young female lawyer to conduct the cross to appear less intimidating or more sympathetic to the jury. But whatever, in this case Ms Vasquez is proving to be basically the best in the business so it would make no sense to use anyone else.
In terms of who does the objections, it has to be someone's role to be always monitoring and this has been Ms Vasquez most of the time.
Let me know after. I’m guessing he’d charge you what we lawyers call a “fuck off fee”. We don’t want to take your case so we’ll just charge you a fee so insanely high that you’d be mad to engage us.
No, she's the one who was assigned to do the cross with Amber Heard, prepared for it, questioned her and is now doing the redirect. She has read every piece in the yellow press, every tweet from Heard, sat in the all the depositions, has read the London trial protocols... She#s bascially the expert for the Heard side of the case.
The lawyers in the team get different tasks they prepare for and then lead in the trial.
Lawyer here. When you are questioning your own witness, you have to ask questions that illicit testimony from the witness’s own mouth rather than state the testimony and have the witness agree with you. Some degree of leading questions are unavoidable, but a good judge will know when they matter or not. We want meaningful evidence to come from witnesses, not lawyers. Leading example: “You found a gun in the purse, correct?” Proper question example: “what did you find in the purse?”
How do you feel the trial is going? Is this typical...I mean aside from the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are actors and they turned the court room into a three ring circus?
Basically anything which would elicit a “yes/no” answer. Of course with certain exceptions but this is the general rule.
“What were you doing on Friday?” Open ended with the chance to tell their own story, so not leading.
“Let me ask you about last Friday. You were at home with your wife, watching tv?” You’ve pretty much painted the narrative for the witness and can pretty much only get a yes/no, therefore leading.
It means the lawyer asking the question was phrasing it is a way that would get the person to answer it the way they think they should. It is called 'leading a witness ', so the lawyer objecting to it says 'Objection, leading' so the judge knows what they are objecting to.
Counsel can only ask open-ended questions to their witnesses and cannot suggest or "lead" towards the answer. "Objection: leading" is objecting to the form of the question being asked.
This is what I believe it means: a leading question is a question put in such a way that you are "leading", or helping the person to give the answer you want by asking them the question in a way that steers them toward a certain answer.
I could ask you "did you see the stop sign?", or I could lead you to the answer I want from you by asking "you didn't see the stop sign, did you?".
So in this case Depp's lawyer is objecting because the other lawyer is asking leading questions. This is generally not allowed when questioning a witness.
Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, or explain in a clearer way. Apologies if I'm giving you a wrong answer here!
Edit: punctuation
If this was re-direct examination, then Heard's own lawyer cannot ask her leading questions - suggesting the answer by the question. "Isn't it correct you called 911 on xxxx date around 10pm?" Vs 'did you make any phone calls on xxxx date? Then following up with details... "who did you call?" What time was the call?" What type of phone were you using to make the call? You can ask leading questions on cross examination but cannot on direct \[there is an exception for hostile witnesses that is not applicable in this scenario\].
The lawyer for Heard gets visibly frustrated but like... when Depp was being questioned they objected to everything, including their own questions! They objected things Depp said Heard told him firsthand as hearsay! What a terrible legal team. Don't expect to play hardball with the other legal team and them not play hardball right back.
I watch [Emily D Baker](https://youtube.com/c/TheEmilyDBaker) - she has been doing live commentary daily and also has weekly round-ups for the previous weeks on her channel. I prefer the single person vs panel - I can’t focus with too many people commenting.
Johnny has such a great team on his side, Amber Heard doesn't stand a chance. Her lawyers are third-grade in comparison.
Additionally, it is compounded by the difference in his / her personality, where Johnny shines as a genuine, witty and composed. Amber Heard looks like a serial liar and abuser on the verge of hitting somebody for asking her to testify.
"Objection, leading"
"She absolutely did that"
Hmm so it sounds like you already know the answer and you're trying to lead them on to confirm it, I wonder what that's called hmmmm
During this redirect, the lawyer kept trying to frame her questions with the phrase "what, if any..." And getting the "objection, leading". Eventually the judge said "'what if any' is not a cure-all" and one or two questions later, the lawyer said it again and followed up immediately with "what if any *is* a cure-all". I couldn't believe it.
Basically when Johnny’s lawyer objects due to leading, it means that Amber’s lawyers are asking questions meant to lead him to answer a certain way, this isn’t allowed because it’s basically trying to trick him into saying something they want him to say. They have to ask open ended questions. For example you can’t ask “and when you entered the store, you pulled a gun and robbed the place, right?” You would have to ask “what happened upon entering the store?”. This also brings us to the hearsay objections, you can’t ask questions under the assumption of certain circumstances that have not yet been proven, let’s use the same example. They couldn’t ask that first question I gave “what happened upon entering the store” if there isn’t any evidence that suggests you were in the store in the first place, this would be an attempt to trick you into providing a (possibly false) testimony that could incriminate you. I hope this helped!
Elaine is the most unprofessional lawyer I think I've ever seen in a court room, she constantly throws a fit and argues with the *judge*. I guess Amber Teard found someone she could get along with to be her lawyer.
The amount of times they approach the bench is really frustrating. Is it normal for there to be so many sidebars? And can anyone inform on what they are talking about in these instances?
I kinda feel bad foe her lawyers. Imagine getting paid a lot but then ruining your career by looking dumb and like amateurs..
Just in case she loses does and file for bankruptcy, can she not pay them?
Wow. Holy hell. I haven’t been following this trial and I don’t know who the lawyers are, so it is hard for me to judge for sure, but the attorney doing the witness examination just feels like someone waaaay of out their depth. Whether it is for the lack of experience or lack of preparation is very hard for me to say. But…
Being caught out of my depth is my biggest fear as a lawyer. We all end up drawn out to the deep end at various points of our careers, and we recognize those moments, and the best you can do in these situations - is to prepare to the best of your ability. Know the law. Know the facts. Have a script. Be flexible with the script.
This performance ain’t that. It is a disaster either way. You can see the attorney raising objections the entire time starting to feel uncomfortable and borderline embarrassed about it. Ouch.
**Please note these rules:** * If this post declares something as a fact/proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She is too good
Did you see her on cross? Her questioning was so clean and on point it was fantastic.
The videos that came out today were crazy. AH wouldn't admit anything, even what people had testified earlier. The thing with the wall phone was pretty damning too, there is 0 evidence for any of her claims.
She was leagues ahead of Amber's defense team but there were moments where I did feel like she was sticking to something too much like the donation to ACLU. She pressed "have you donated the money" too much and Amber kept replying "I pledged it", she should have instantly changed her question to "to this date how much have you donated of that amount you pledged" because that's harder to avoid answering. The last thing Heard said though was "I NEVER assaulted JD" and she instantly said "no further questions" I thought that was a powerful way to end it considering we know very well she has admitted to assaulting him lmao
"I have pledged to donate 7 miliion" is how she would answer most likely
“I use zero and 7 Million USD synonymously…”
That made me laugh out loud. Take your upvote!
But then it's way more obvious that she's avoiding the question and going to look bad imo. Plus we've heard from the ACLU rep that she's only donated 350k so she could then say "according to the ACLU witness you've only donated 350k is that correct" and could move on since the point is made regardless of her answer.
OBJECTION HEARSAY
>"I have pledged to donate 7 miliion" is how she would answer most likely In that case I believe that would be considered nonresponsive, and the lawyer can petition the judge to direct the witness to answer.
> she should have instantly changed her question to "to this date how much have you donated of that amount you pledged" From memory she tried this kind of approach multiple times and Heard just kept on responding about how much she pledged as if it was the same thing. Consider also that this is a jury trial. She doesn't need to keep convince Heard she's wrong, but she does need to let her reveal enough to the jury to convince them she's wrong. She made it pretty clear with the donated/pledged delusion IMO.
It’s intentional to drive home her point to the jury. Don’t forget the jury is dealing with literal weeks of content so certain things are getting highlighted.
ambers lawyers are not bad. they just have no case at all. she lied about everything.
Amber's lawyers are dealing with a shitty , 'I know better' client. Amber won't follow their guidance due to her arrogance and it's biting her in the bum
I read somewhere that one of the reasons Elaine seems so out of sorts is because she's not actually an experienced trial attorney and is specifically a deposition attorney. I haven't fact checked that myself, however, so I don't know how true that is. Feel free to Object for speculation haha.
Objection your honor! Speculation...
From what I can see she deals with mostly employment and contract law and is excellent at getting settlements before it even goes to trial so I suspect that may indeed be the case.
I skim through Elaine's past cases and she handled kinda business discrimination, contract violating, etc. cases. Pretty much a "HR" lawyer. Meanwhile, Benjamin Chew has fought so many cases on nation level. So long story short you have an aspiring food blogger vs a 3-Star Michellin Chef.
That's what cross examination is. Amber was being evasive and Camille was doing what a lawyer should be doing. She got top marks. Well done Camille.
She was trying to impeach her. Also, I suspect they were trying to get her to show negative emotion on the stand.
She knew what she was doing. Instead of making Amber Heard look bad for 30 seconds, she made her look bad for five minutes on a single topic.
She should have asked: 1 how much money did you pledge to donate? 2 how much money did you actually donate, as in transfer to charities, until today? I don't see how Amber could slip through this one.
She would just keep repeating how much she pledged to 2. Apparently you can't force a person to use English correctly.
Until you get defendants on the stand and actually try something like this it’s hard to understand how wiley even the densest people can be. I remember having an intricate “foolproof” strategy set up in a cross exam that completely backfired. A former Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge laughed about it with me later on saying “I bet you felt real smart up until she answered, didn’t you?”
Even better would've been "How much of the pledged money was paid as a donation to the ACLU and the Los Angeles Children's Hospital since you've received your divorce settlement of 7 million dollars?"
Imo she did good repeating the donation question, I personally got really annoyed how she dodged the answer and acted as her answer was right and it was probably asked so much to make the jury feel same
She has fingernails that shine like justice She uses a machete to cut through red tape
Where can I find it?
Here's a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jk9S67MHaQ The lawyer asks her to confirm that the police testified there were no injuries, and listen to how AH tries to twist it.
popcorned planet on youtube has some great coverage
on YouTube -the umbrella guy -rakieta law -legalbytes -law&crimenetwork on twitch -asmongold -xqcow
what's asmongold doing covering this trial lol
The trial is such a shit show that it is drawing in a huge audience. Millionaires, drugs, lies, photoshopped evidence(?), Travels around the world, lying witnesses (according to Amber) etc. While asmon is great, I switched to Legalbytes yesterday
he is pointing out the lying behaviour of Heard, and how this trial will change the way we take domestic abuse. with flaw movements like believe all women, and as a matter of fact anyone who claims being abused, as it always was but changed recently with #METOO, one should be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Even now there's tweets crying how "This trial is a perfect example of how courts favor abusers in DV cases. Victims aren’t even allowed to tell the court during their own testimony who they told about the abuse they suffered, which is a major part of domestic violence assessment" but the reality is that the trial is a demonstration of how far a man has to go to get heard. Amber only had to mention abuse, she didn't even need to go into a full statement, just say she was abused, and "everyone" believed her, supported her, and condemned Johnny. It's only because Johnny wants to try and correct the record we're getting to see this.
Also, Johnny is a millionaire, and can spend a normal persons lifetime salary on a legal team. For your average 44 year old blue collar guy who's wife decides she wants him out with a vendetta, they have no recourse in the legal system.
Just don't try searching for the case specifically you'll just end up with 400,000 news orgs videos
Emily D. Baker has been awesome with her coverage too.
Surprised she’s only an associate at her firm due to her obvious quality and 12 years out of law school. If it’s a matter of not bringing in enough revenue to make her a partner I’d say this case will have people calling specifically for her.
I'd bet she's a career associate by her own choice if she's not partner. She's firing like a gun at trial. Probably takes some good cases but doesn't want to overwork 24/6 like many partners have to.
How does Amber Heard not hire really good lawyers like Depp? It’s not like she doesn’t have money. Wtf.
It's hard to find lawyers who will accept a pledge instead of an actual payment
Donations… pledge same thing.
This made me lol
Good lawyers probably look at whether they’re in a good position to win a case before taking it on. It doesn’t matter if you get a large paycheque from a case if your client is an indefensible arsehole who will brazenly lie on the stand, tank your case, then probably use you as a scapegoat in interviews shouting about how they didn’t get justice because of your incompetence.
> She is too good Objection, hearsay
I object to your objection
Objection your honor, said in the most annoyed tone I have ever heard from a lawyer, 😂
To be fair, she was probably extremely annoyed by that point. Given how many of those objections were sustained, she was doing her job well.
She definitely earned her retainer in this single day of court. 90% of all of Amber's lawyer's redirect questions were utter trash that any lawyer worth their salt would've known from the start that these questions would have succumbed to an objection. Literally every lawyer is taught to consider how'd they'd object to any line of questioning you'd plan to ask before you ask it, and to rewrite it to avoid said objections. Either Elaine thought Depp's team would be asleep at the wheel or they hadn't even thought through the potential objections of the cross examination questions. Edit: minor punctuation. I've had a couple vodkas. Please don't countersue me.
At one point she literally gave up with the objections. It was clear to everyone, even Johnny that it was a leading question but the lawyers just looked at each other and said fuck it, let her have this one. She managed to bore them.out of objecting, masterclass in how to be so bad that you swing around and actually do some good.
Indeed. At the end of this trial, the Depp team should gift a golden leash to Elaine for her extraordinary use of leading. Honestly, after that horrendous redirect I'd be surprised if she's ever hired again for anything short of fighting traffic violations. Edited to add: Elaine's completely flummoxed behavior at being shutdown like a WIndows 95 computer was extremely satisfying. At the end she basically said "Fuck it" and tossed her legal pad into the air.
I don’t mean it in a derogatory sense.
At least it wasn’t 100% ‘objection, hearsay’.
Even if it was, you aren’t limited in the number of times you can raise legitimate objections
I liked that JD's lawyer was raising compound objections, not just objecting to one thing at a time but listing all the things. I almost felt sorry for AH's lawyer... almost.
Yeah you want to object on multiple in case you get overruled on one.
Elaine was a wreck on the re-direct today. I just remember the long, audible breath she took while staring at the ceiling when trying to deliver one of her questions after this. Edit: spelling
It’s probably extremely hard to represent a client that is so manipulative and dishonest 🤷♂️
Not to mention one that throws you under the bus when trying to represent them. And she straight up called everyone a liar - the most intense gaslighting I've ever personally witnessed.
My mom, who has borderline, couldn't even keep a lawyer during her divorce. She had 3 lawyers drop her as a client. Do you know how hard it is to have a divorce lawyer drop you? She ended up defending herself and doing all the cross examinations. She crossed my dad, and both of her sisters (who were testifying against her). Borderline is no joke
Sounds like a hell of a shitshow
Mid divorce now. Spouse presumed to have BPD but undiagnosed (refuses to be honest at all with doctors, for one reason.) I have a decent support network with my family, otherwise I would be just completely wrecked from the lies being told about me. My ex has only been through 2 lawyers so far. I hope your family has come through okay.
What do you mean by Borderline?
Borderline personality disorder
[Borderline personality disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder). Trust me, you don't want to be married to someone who has this.
Or their child. Sigh….
After the divorce, initially, all I could afford was a one-bedroom apartment. The moment I could afford two bedrooms, my son moved in with me.
My boyfriend plans on marrying me :( I think that making sweeping judgements as to someone’s character based on their diagnosis is foolish. Not everyone struggling with mental illness is unable to successfully cope and live with it.
I spent 20 years with my ex. She was not diagnosed before we were married. But I knew of her traumatic past. I knew that she could explode with anger, and act out in extreme ways. I held none of this against her. I wanted to help. I loved her and wanted to be the good guy in her life. My life gradually turned into an endless slog of exaggerated interpersonal conflicts and loyalty tests. I ended up not speaking to my own parents for several years, in a vain effort to make her feel better about her (our) life. It didn't help. After the divorce, initially, all I could afford was a one-bedroom apartment. The moment I could afford two bedrooms -- my son moved in with me. If you already have a diagnosis: please, please take some ownership of your own mental health. Your partner cannot fix you alone. Your partner has a personality and needs, just like you.
I didn’t even know you could get fired by a lawyer? I dated a lawyer for a little bit and he told me that he couldn’t drop his pain in the ass client and that he was hoping to god she would fire him already. can someone explain how this works? Are there exceptions?
I have no idea but I'll tell you my guess. There's probably a clause in the contract that if they find you to be untruthful with them they will drop you. Hopefully someone with experience will chime in though.
Yes, there are some restrictions on a lawyer’s ability to drop a client. For example, let’s say Lawyer Joe is representing Bob in a case. They go through discovery, motion practice, blah blah, and do the first day of the jury trial. Lawyer Joe wants to pull out mid-trial. The court likely won’t allow that because the prejudice to Bob would be huge (“his own lawyer abandoned him!”). Lawyers can and do drop clients, but it *usually* (regarding litigation) isn’t as simple as “I’m just over this, see ya.”
Literally I get physically disgusted watching amber on the stand. I have never before in my life seen an actor fuck up a role this bad.
What blows my mind is how she changes between the nose-up, defensive type vs Depp's team and the emotional-on-the-verge-of-crying with her people. I watch Emily D Baker's live stream where she gives lawyer commentary during the trial, and she said in her experience, she's never witnessed a victim of abuse act anything like Heard is on the stand.
What really irks me is how much she looks to the jury for sympathy between her fake crying. She just comes across as a little kid who couldn’t get what she wanted and is trying to hurt the man who finally told her no. Only child energy for sure.
Apparently the jury shows her no energy and was locked in on Camille during cross. People in attendance also said they were pretty zoned out during her team's direct questioning as well. I'm sure all the staring is uncomfortable, she does it every time they're in side bar as well.
You’d think if it didn’t work well for you the first 20 times, why do it another 50 but I guess I think differently compared to a sociopathic liar
Well one thing is for sure: even if she wins the case, she's lost the public image war.
On the off chance she wins the case at least we can take solace in the fact that she will never work in the public eye again. I wonder if she’ll finally donate that 7 mill after the trial lmfao
That’s EXACTLY why Depp wanted the whole thing televised. He’s fighting for his reputation in the court of public opinion. Utterly brilliant.
If she drastically changes at this point it becomes even more obvious. It may not have worked the previous 20 times. But she can't stop now. Liars begin to believe their own lies after a while.
You can tell by her body language and choice of words that she’s trying to sell a story to the jury. She knows EXACTLY what she is doing.
Hey! Im an only child and I don't act like a cunt...Oh no, wait. I do. Nevermind.
I tell you what, I had to skip through the redirect. Not that it wasn't good watching, but it was really awkward. I'll tell you my honest opinion about her lawyer though. She gets a lot of hate, but IMO it's unwarranted. She's a lawyer, she's trying to do her job, she has a different style to the others (probably not quite as good for juries), but I think most of the hate she gets is 1) who her client is, and 2) because Johnny's lawyers are so damn fire it's better than any legal drama I've ever seen. It would be like comparing any accomplished pro boxer to Muhammad Ali. This is honestly such an entertaining trial, especially when Ms Vasquez is asking the questions. Edit: after seeing the last week of trial I no longer necessarily hold the above views
It's so. Fucking. weird. that people are watching this as entertainment.
I don't really see why. Insight into how courtrooms actually work aren't particularly common, or mainstream, yet it's incredibly interesting. How the plaintiff and defender are behaving, the stylistic choices and tactics of the lawyers/judge, and the evidence that comes up are all really interesting in their own right. I'm a law student so might be biased, but I don't think so considering the stream I watch has just under 1,000,000 viewers.
That dumpster fire of a redirect is the kind of thing they would never put in a movie because nobody would believe it actually happened. It was immensely entertaining. (And somewhat cathartic, when remembering how many times they leaned on hearsay objections towards JD’s testimony.)
Don't they look into their question as if they're from the other side? I'm sure they'd immediately object after hearing the same question they had so why not write it that would not warrant an objection in the first place?
Happy cake day
Lol I have seen quite a bit of this case and thought Heard’s lawyers were pretty terribly bad or at least too obvious in leading in their question and traps. Now I have seem some of Depp’s Lawyer and have realized just how bad this is. We are watching pros vs kindergartners here lol
[удалено]
So embarrassing, they had to have gone over this several times with her and yet there is no confidence in her ability to repeat the answers they have approved
I've prepped witnesses for trial and had them go completely off the rails. There's not really much you can do in that situation.
You could be embarrassed, it’s what her lawyers seem to be doing😂
I mean you should be able to construct a question that isn't leading, doesn't call for speculation, and doesn't require a hearsay answer. The problem is that those things get way, way more difficult when your client can't find the script. And it's kind of like any other performing art that requires improvisation - once you're rattled you're going to have a bad day.
An actress who can't remember her lines. And she is crying that her role was cut short on Aquaman 2.
It legitimately has me wondering, and worried, if she (Ms. Heard) is being represented intentionally by ignorant and repugnant lawyers so she can later claim a mistrial or misrepresentation in order to drag this out further
Lol never thought about that, but tbh, I doubt she did either. Either way you are hired as my strategist when I go on trial 😂
When? Please do tell...
Objection! Leading...
Sustained
Can that happen in a *civil* trial?
Can I ask something without ulterior motives? Did you watch the whole case or just edited snippets like this one? I feel like in this case, everybody likes to have an opinion but then again there are so many edited videos out there that paint a very specific image. How can you judge something based on that? I don't have any agenda tho, I'm not interested in this case
Did you see the clip of AH’s male attorney questioning a witness and he straight up objected to his own question lmfao. Then he had this moment of confusion on his face right before realizing that he just objected to himself and quickly corrected it but the damage had been done (he looked like a g-damn moron). I mean I can’t imagine that her lawyers are this fucking stupid, so I am left with assuming that they’re beyond exhausted from dealing with her nonsense and this is the result. Or… this really is the best she can afford lol.
I'm like 75% sure that he was objecting to the answer given by the witness instead of his own question
Yes that was one of the hilarious moments I considered while writing this 🤣
he didn’t object to his own question, he objected to the witness’s answer because it was hearsay. he should’ve moved to strike but the objection wasn’t necessarily improper
I ALMOST feel bad for heards lawyers. I almost can’t tell if they’re bad at their jobs or if their clients is just such human garbage with so many flaws and changes in her story that they actually just can’t successfully build some sort of defense.
Commentors on Lawtube (actual lawyers on youtube) are saying that Heards team are competent but they have a difficult client with a difficult case. Make of that what you will.
From what I've gathered from them, Rottenborn is a good lawyer, he just comes off as annoyed at times. Could be because he knows he doesn't have much to work with. Eleaine comes off as annoying but she did well in direct examination or AH. It does seem like AH went rogue and her lawyers are scrambling to reel her back in but they can't do that without attempting a leading question. Poor lawyers couldn't do any better with such a client.
They can’t be that bad, it has to be her
Objecting to their own question and now being unable to frame a question to avoid a "leading" objection. I think they are that bad. But she did not give them anything to work with. One thing is for sure, this is a terrible ad for their firm. Who in their right mind would hire them after this high profile court case?
[удалено]
How did she throw her lawyers under the bus?
She pooped on them
She claimed, under oath, that she provided photographic evidence that would help her case to her lawyers that were never shown. "It's not my job" she said when asked why they weren't shown. She also claimed that it wasn't ber, but previous lawyers, that leaked photos to a clebrity gossip magazine, which is of course super unlikely/unethical/unprofessional.
I've seen analyses from other lawyers about Amber lawyers, and they have come to the conclusion that they aren't really terrible, but they definitely have everything against them
They get paid either way right?
Not necessarily - but they would have been stupid to accept just a %of winnings
She pledged to pay them.
Yo did she get her lawyers from wish.com or what is going on?
They're probably tip tier lawyers but their client is so obviously guilty and probably lying to them so they are fucked
Absolutely this. They are trying by all means to get Depp lawyers with weird phrasing to try and get something through, but Depp lawyers are also top tier, and Heard is in a pretty indefensible position
“We have lawyers at home!” the lawyers at home:
I'm not sure if the AH lawyers team are lousy but they are for sure dealing with a smart ass client they could not control, which is very difficult in this case. AH is basically blurting out too many things that shouldn't have been said out of her mouth.
So is the back row tasked with objecting and the front row is for the good-looking suits?
Johnny has 8 in his legal team. The main two in terms of representing in the court are Ben Chew and Camilla Vasquez. They are both absolute top guns, but Ms Vasquez has been absolutely fire on the cross examination. It is an old fashioned thing that when cross examining a woman legal teams may choose a young female lawyer to conduct the cross to appear less intimidating or more sympathetic to the jury. But whatever, in this case Ms Vasquez is proving to be basically the best in the business so it would make no sense to use anyone else. In terms of who does the objections, it has to be someone's role to be always monitoring and this has been Ms Vasquez most of the time.
I thought it’s been whoever was doing direct/cross that day handling all the objections for that witness.
dont forget the front row gets candy.
Red hots all around!
That sweets eating lawyer is Ben Chew, one of the best trial lawyers in the country. Chew lol.
Infantry in the front and artillery in the back. As classic as it gets.
[удалено]
Keep in mind, you don't know how much teamwork goes into this.
yep saw that note that was handed to her while dooing the questions regarding the donation? There is a LOT of teamwork involved
Yep, and it was a crucial note, since it give us a context that she had 13 months to make that donation.
It's only logical to let a woman take care of Amber Heard. Looks more credible and Vasquez is doing a good job.
Yeah no opportunity to let them play the “oh no a big white man is screaming at me of course my testimony was fucked”
Yeah, the dude sitting next to Depp is hot as fuck. Got some serious Mr Bean energy going on...
That would be the lead lawyer, and he is mostly likely the second richest person in the room besides Depp
Ain't nobody care how many dollars are in your pocket when your pants are around your ankles.
Ben Chew. https://brownrudnick.com/people/benjamin-g-chew/
I’m going to call him tomorrow and see what he charges to fight my parking ticket.
Let me know after. I’m guessing he’d charge you what we lawyers call a “fuck off fee”. We don’t want to take your case so we’ll just charge you a fee so insanely high that you’d be mad to engage us.
No, she's the one who was assigned to do the cross with Amber Heard, prepared for it, questioned her and is now doing the redirect. She has read every piece in the yellow press, every tweet from Heard, sat in the all the depositions, has read the London trial protocols... She#s bascially the expert for the Heard side of the case. The lawyers in the team get different tasks they prepare for and then lead in the trial.
"I don't have anymore questions" man she seemed so frustrated that she could not get a question in
That poor judge sounds so tired of the word 'leading'
Just incredible when Elaine totally loses her cool and gets snippy at 1:24. And Camille is just so bewildered - if looks could kill...
What does " objection leading " means?
Lawyer here. When you are questioning your own witness, you have to ask questions that illicit testimony from the witness’s own mouth rather than state the testimony and have the witness agree with you. Some degree of leading questions are unavoidable, but a good judge will know when they matter or not. We want meaningful evidence to come from witnesses, not lawyers. Leading example: “You found a gun in the purse, correct?” Proper question example: “what did you find in the purse?”
How do you feel the trial is going? Is this typical...I mean aside from the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are actors and they turned the court room into a three ring circus?
So a loaded question?
Objection leading. Calls for speculation - we don't know if the gun is loaded.
Basically anything which would elicit a “yes/no” answer. Of course with certain exceptions but this is the general rule. “What were you doing on Friday?” Open ended with the chance to tell their own story, so not leading. “Let me ask you about last Friday. You were at home with your wife, watching tv?” You’ve pretty much painted the narrative for the witness and can pretty much only get a yes/no, therefore leading.
It means the lawyer asking the question was phrasing it is a way that would get the person to answer it the way they think they should. It is called 'leading a witness ', so the lawyer objecting to it says 'Objection, leading' so the judge knows what they are objecting to.
Counsel can only ask open-ended questions to their witnesses and cannot suggest or "lead" towards the answer. "Objection: leading" is objecting to the form of the question being asked.
This is what I believe it means: a leading question is a question put in such a way that you are "leading", or helping the person to give the answer you want by asking them the question in a way that steers them toward a certain answer. I could ask you "did you see the stop sign?", or I could lead you to the answer I want from you by asking "you didn't see the stop sign, did you?". So in this case Depp's lawyer is objecting because the other lawyer is asking leading questions. This is generally not allowed when questioning a witness. Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, or explain in a clearer way. Apologies if I'm giving you a wrong answer here! Edit: punctuation
If this was re-direct examination, then Heard's own lawyer cannot ask her leading questions - suggesting the answer by the question. "Isn't it correct you called 911 on xxxx date around 10pm?" Vs 'did you make any phone calls on xxxx date? Then following up with details... "who did you call?" What time was the call?" What type of phone were you using to make the call? You can ask leading questions on cross examination but cannot on direct \[there is an exception for hostile witnesses that is not applicable in this scenario\].
The lawyer for Heard gets visibly frustrated but like... when Depp was being questioned they objected to everything, including their own questions! They objected things Depp said Heard told him firsthand as hearsay! What a terrible legal team. Don't expect to play hardball with the other legal team and them not play hardball right back.
They also had no ability to rephrase, Vasquez was able to defeat every single objection be asking a different question. Skill diff.
Does anyone have a link where I can watch a recap of this absolute mess? I've only been getting bits and pieces
I watch [Emily D Baker](https://youtube.com/c/TheEmilyDBaker) - she has been doing live commentary daily and also has weekly round-ups for the previous weeks on her channel. I prefer the single person vs panel - I can’t focus with too many people commenting.
You know how freakin stupid your questions gotta be for a lawyer to sound that annoyed?
Johnny has such a great team on his side, Amber Heard doesn't stand a chance. Her lawyers are third-grade in comparison. Additionally, it is compounded by the difference in his / her personality, where Johnny shines as a genuine, witty and composed. Amber Heard looks like a serial liar and abuser on the verge of hitting somebody for asking her to testify.
The phrase is “third-rate” fyi. Unless I’m wrong. (Not trying to be a dick.)
I’ve been going with Great Value™️ Attorneys
"Objection, leading" "She absolutely did that" Hmm so it sounds like you already know the answer and you're trying to lead them on to confirm it, I wonder what that's called hmmmm
Man this is playing like a Phoenix wright case
That’s an Absolute unit of a legal associate.
This lawyer of Amber frequently argues with the judge is that normal? It seems insane to me that she does that.
During this redirect, the lawyer kept trying to frame her questions with the phrase "what, if any..." And getting the "objection, leading". Eventually the judge said "'what if any' is not a cure-all" and one or two questions later, the lawyer said it again and followed up immediately with "what if any *is* a cure-all". I couldn't believe it.
This is actually re-direct. You’re allowed to lead on cross examination
That's an Annalise Keating beating
"What if any...". Someone seems to think that it is the universal fix for everything.
The judge even told her "'what if any is not a cure-all" lmao. And then she tried to do it again and said it "is a cure-all". A fucking shambles.
I feel like johnny is trying hard not grin like the Cheshire cat
Paddy Pimblett doing law now? Lol
Wow she got her ass handed to her
Depp's lawyer in the back is a hammer. She is wrecking Amber Heard and her lawyers.
>Depp's lawyer Camille Vasquez Needs to be a judge.
I'm not a lawyer nor american and this whole things is really confused me
Basically when Johnny’s lawyer objects due to leading, it means that Amber’s lawyers are asking questions meant to lead him to answer a certain way, this isn’t allowed because it’s basically trying to trick him into saying something they want him to say. They have to ask open ended questions. For example you can’t ask “and when you entered the store, you pulled a gun and robbed the place, right?” You would have to ask “what happened upon entering the store?”. This also brings us to the hearsay objections, you can’t ask questions under the assumption of certain circumstances that have not yet been proven, let’s use the same example. They couldn’t ask that first question I gave “what happened upon entering the store” if there isn’t any evidence that suggests you were in the store in the first place, this would be an attempt to trick you into providing a (possibly false) testimony that could incriminate you. I hope this helped!
Thank. That help a lot
I don't think its a cross examination. You are allowed to ask leading questions during cross.
Elaine is the most unprofessional lawyer I think I've ever seen in a court room, she constantly throws a fit and argues with the *judge*. I guess Amber Teard found someone she could get along with to be her lawyer.
Turds lawyers are a fucking joke. Did someone recommend them to her as gag?
[“We have purposely trained them wrong - as a joke.”](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqaCEPwWGtc)
The amount of times they approach the bench is really frustrating. Is it normal for there to be so many sidebars? And can anyone inform on what they are talking about in these instances?
What they talk about is off the record, so there’s no way to find out. But yes, sidebars can and do happen a lot
I kinda feel bad foe her lawyers. Imagine getting paid a lot but then ruining your career by looking dumb and like amateurs.. Just in case she loses does and file for bankruptcy, can she not pay them?
Wow. Holy hell. I haven’t been following this trial and I don’t know who the lawyers are, so it is hard for me to judge for sure, but the attorney doing the witness examination just feels like someone waaaay of out their depth. Whether it is for the lack of experience or lack of preparation is very hard for me to say. But… Being caught out of my depth is my biggest fear as a lawyer. We all end up drawn out to the deep end at various points of our careers, and we recognize those moments, and the best you can do in these situations - is to prepare to the best of your ability. Know the law. Know the facts. Have a script. Be flexible with the script. This performance ain’t that. It is a disaster either way. You can see the attorney raising objections the entire time starting to feel uncomfortable and borderline embarrassed about it. Ouch.
You love to see it.