Johnny Depp’s team has issued a lengthy response following Amber Heard’s calls for the verdict from their lengthy defamation case to be dismissed.
In a memorandum issued on Monday, July 11, Depp’s lawyers asked the Virginia court to “reject Ms. Heard’s baseless contention.”
READ MORE: Amber Heard Alleges Wrong Person Served As Juror In Johnny Depp Defamation Trial, Asks For Mistrial
“Following a six-week jury trial, a jury of Ms. Heard’s peers rendered a verdict against her in virtually all respects,” says the memo, as reported by Deadline. “Though understandably displeased with the outcome of trial, Ms. Heard has identified no legitimate basis to set aside in any respect the jury’s decision.”
It continues, “The verdict was well supported by the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the law, and should not be set aside. Mr. Depp respectfully submits that the Court should deny Ms. Heard’s Post-Trial Motions, which verge into the frivolous.”
READ MORE: Johnny Depp Calls Out Ex-Wife Amber Heard In New Album: ‘If I Had A Dime, It Wouldn’t Reach Your Hand’
The memo also addresses Heard’s issues with Juror 15.
It adds, “In a rare moment of candor, Ms. Heard admits that she was aware of the purported discrepancy in Juror 15’s birth year from the very start of trial because ‘Juror 15 …was clearly born later than 1945.’ Ms. Heard therefore concedes she had more than enough time before the trial started, and during the six-week trial, when at least two alternates were available, to investigate and discover the alleged ‘new’ facts. Clearly, Ms. Heard waived any right to allege ‘new’ facts she chose not to investigate for so long, much less to demand the extraordinary remedy of a mistrial.”
According to the legal documents obtained by ET, Heard’s team claims that the problem occurred when an unidentified 77-year-old living at an address in Virginia was summoned to jury duty.
Heard’s team alleges that an unidentified 52-year-old living at that exact same address with the exact same last name instead showed up for jury duty, and somehow managed to get picked for the six-week trial and serve as a juror.
As a result, they argue that the judge should declare a mistrial and order a new trial.