Is Amber Heard in for more legal trouble?
That might be the case, as the Aquaman star made one potentially damaging revelation when she was cross-examined by Johnny Depp’s lawyers during the actor’s defamation trial.
As we reported, while being cross-examined by Depp’s lawyer, Camille Vasquez, Heard admitted that she had not yet donated her full divorce settlement to two charities, including the ACLU, as she promised she would.
While the actress attempted to reason that she hadn’t yet coughed up the dough because of Depp’s lawsuit (which didn’t start until years after the pledge was made), this revelation is still a big deal, seeing as she previously testified under oath that she had “donated” the “entire amount” to the charities:
“The entire amount of my divorce settlement was donated to charity.”
Since the actor’s team tried to assert money had been a motivating factor in her public claims, this was one of the major keys of her defense during Depp’s libel suit against a UK publication in 2020. For what it’s worth, after being pressed by Vasquez, Heard claimed she uses the terms “pledge” and “donate” interchangeably, but it’s also worth noting those words are NOT synonymous. (Also, isn’t Amber supposed to be really smart and an avid reader? Wouldn’t she know they’re not synonymous? Why not just be upfront and say she hadn’t done so yet due to financial difficulty but still promised to? Why risk it under oath? Was this just bad legal advice on her team’s part?)
Since Amber has since confirmed on record that she hasn’t, in fact, paid the full donation after all, she apparently could potentially face perjury charges in the UK. Sean Caulfield at law firm Hodge, Jones and Allen said that could very well happen, saying via GameRant:
“While it may not be a central issue to the case [the donations], perjury is the single biggest threat and cuts to the core of our justice system. So the police may be invited to investigate to show that any member of the public who lies to the court can be prosecuted for perjury.”
Other legal experts agree. While speaking with Newsweek, Halim Dhanidina, a lawyer and former California state judge, said that painting Amber as an “unreliable witness” is essential for Depp to win the trial, explaining:
“Every opportunity the Depp team has to expose Ms. Heard as an unreliable witness should be seized. Especially where it is on a subject that is likely to make her less likable to the jury. It also may support their theory that Ms. Heard has less than altruistic motives in this case.”
Attorney Jeff Lewis shared a similar sentiment, telling the outlet:
“In every case involving sexual or domestic violence, a ‘he/said she/said’ case, credibility is king. The donation issue is irrelevant except it is highly relevant to Heard’s credibility. Depp’s legal team’s theory of the case is that Heard’s story about the violence has ‘evolved’ over the years. How do they prove that Heard is liar? Not only by disproving that the violence occurred but also proving Heard lied.”
Heard wouldn’t face any criminal charges until this defamation lawsuit is over, but this is definitely something we’ll be keeping our eyes on. She is already facing one perjury investigation for an entirely different case in Australia.
In the meantime, how do U think this will affect the trial? Do Amber’s instances of questionable credibility outweigh the claims of violence? Or no?
[Image via Law and Crime]