October 25, 2024
Sheppard Mullin Partner Benjamin Chew’s keynote address at The George Washington Law Review Volume 93 Symposium, The Survival of the Jury, made a strong case for the importance of the American jury system through a case study of his experiences in the Depp v. Heard trial. In recounting his experiences, Chew sought to advance two primary theses: (i) that the jury is the best and most democratic way of resolving most disputes involving human relationships, and (ii) that cameras in the courtroom promote transparency and serve the public interest.
The Depp v. Heard case serves as a core example of the efficacy of the American jury system. When Chew and Camille Vasquez agreed to represent Johnny Depp in his defamation suit, they did not foresee the global attention the case would attract. However, as it progressed, the trial became a high-profile event, with many seeing it as representative of the #MeToo movement. Depp, once a celebrated actor, had faced significant financial and reputational challenges following his relationship with Amber Heard. Chew recounted Depp’s personal history and the events leading up to the inevitable Depp v. Heard trial.
As the case unfolded, Depp’s career took a hit following Heard’s allegations of abuse. Her claims, which were first publicized in a Washington Post op-ed, cast Depp in a negative light and resulted in severe repercussions surrounding his professional life as an actor, including his dismissal from Disney, with which he had a long and lucrative relationship. Chew emphasized the difficulty of winning a defamation case under the actual malice standard, particularly against a high-profile public figure. In this case, Depp’s team chose to pursue Heard directly rather than the Washington Post, circumventing the need to prove actual malice by holding the speaker herself accountable.
Strategic decisions played a key role throughout the trial, from selecting the jurisdiction (Virginia, where anti-SLAPP statutes were milder) to assembling a team of younger female associates to counter the perception that Depp was an abuser. Chew’s team took a strategic approach to pairing witnesses with attorneys in a way that would best support Depp’s case and play against the negative perception that the allegations may have caused. Along the way, they faced challenges, having to combat damaging personal text messages and allegations of drug use, which the judge ultimately allowed as evidence. Chew detailed the importance of addressing negative evidence honestly with the jury, presenting Depp as a flawed but fundamentally truthful individual while simultaneously showing that while Depp may have done a number of questionable things, no credible evidence of abuse existed.
The trial also highlighted the contrasting legal processes in the U.S. and the U.K. Most people expected Depp to win his lawsuit against The Sun in England, where the burden is on the defendant to prove the truth of the allegation of defamation as opposed to Fairfax, Virginia, where the burden is on the plaintiff to show the allegations were false. England also does not have rules against hearsay. However, Chew noted that there was also no live direct testimony in England. Because Depp won in the U.S. even with the heavier burden, it underscores the value of being able to present a comprehensive story to American juries and how powerful that is for the outcomes of cases.
In addition to arguing for the survival of the jury, Chew sought to advocate for the use of cameras in courtrooms. A significant component of the trial was its public nature. Cameras in the courtroom allowed millions to follow the proceedings in real time. Chew acknowledged the risks associated with such levels of transparency; both Depp and Heard faced public scrutiny and, in some cases, threats from social media. However, he asserted that the presence of cameras ultimately served the public good by exposing the intricacies of the legal process and enabling a broader understanding of the case. Chew views this transparency as a necessary counterbalance in an era when public trust in institutions is eroding.
Chew’s keynote demonstrates in action the ability of the jury to reach a fair and just outcome. Even in the thrusts of the #MeToo movement, Depp’s team was able to craft a compelling and truthful story that allowed the jury to cut through any notions of societal bias to reach a fair judgment. The use of cameras in the courtroom put this prime example of the efficacy of the American jury on display for the public to see, and it is safe to say that Chew powerfully advanced his arguments for the survival of the jury as an institution and for the use of cameras in the courtroom to engage the American public in our legal processes.
This summary was authored by Ryan Hudson, Member.