🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Camille Vasquez's "unrelenting" cross-examination of Amber Heard was a key factor in Johnny Depp's court victory, according to a lawyer.
Depp's attorney was widely praised for her performance in court during the high-profile defamation trial, becoming a celebrity in her own right, becoming the subject of dozens of viral moments, and being awarded a promotion following her success in the courtroom.
Heard and Depp had been embroiled in a weeks-long trial after the actor sued his ex-wife for $50 million, accusing her of defaming him by writing an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2018 in which she said that she had been the victim of domestic violence. Though Depp was never named in the piece, his lawyers argued that it was clear who she was referencing.
Millions of people all over the world tuned into the trial from Fairfax, Virginia as the proceedings were televised daily.
The trial ended with a jury finding that Heard had defamed Depp with actual malice. She was ordered to pay him $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, though the punitive damages were reduced to $350,000, due to a Virginia law that caps punitive damages at that amount.
Vasquez's cross-examination of Heard led to a number of viral moments and even saw her compared to fictional lawyer Elle Woods from the movie Legally Blonde.
Alex McCready, the head of R&P at the international law firm Vardags, believed Vasquez's style of cross-examination convinced the jury to side with Depp.
"It was Camilla Vasquez, Depp's lawyer, who was coined the reigning breakout star of the trial, celebrated across social media for her quickfire objections and unrelenting cross-examination of Heard," McCready told Newsweek.
"Regardless, the outcome of Depp v. Heard was always going to be uncertain," the lawyer continued. "That is the nature of a trial by jury: it is inherently unpredictable. Unlike a defamation trial in the U.K., which is heard by a judge, a defamation trial by jury is largely decided by who those jurors believe and trust and in shaping this belief and trust."
McCready said that there was also more evidence allowed in the U.S. trial regarding the "conduct and (un)reliability of witnesses, which could be used to Depp and Heard's respective advantages."
"And it was an advantage that Depp's legal team (who proved to be slicker and better prepared throughout) definitely secured," McCready added.
Florida attorney Bradford Cohen agreed that Heard's legal team was "out-lawyered."
"I believe her attorneys were overwhelmed with the case and the coverage," Cohen told Newsweek. "The errors in selecting experts and the cross of Mr. Depp demonstrated they were just not prepared for a case like this case. They just didn't demonstrate the same passion for their client as Mr. Depp's lawyers. To put it simply they were out-lawyered."
Vasquez herself reflected on the court victory and the tactics she and her team employed while speaking on Good Morning America on Wednesday.
"I think that her impression on the jury was what it was. Something that I focused on and something we focused on in that cross-examination was using her words against her," Vasquez said. "It was very important for us, that every question that was asked was tied to something that she had said previously. And I think the jury got to see and the world got to see and hear from Ms. Heard, in that relationship, on every single topic."
Some lawyers also agreed that Heard's "demeanor" on the stand was a contributing factor to her loss in the trial.
"My opinion why she lost is a combination of factors. The first is her demeanor and testimony on the stand," Cohen said in a previous interview with Newsweek. "I don't believe she came off as a credible witness, adding allegations and being defiant one minute and crying the next. That was a real problem, and nothing the lawyers could do to overcome it."
Following the announcement of the verdict last week, Heard released a statement expressing her disappointment.
"The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband," Heard said in her statement.
"I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously."
