.png)
'The celebrity trial of the century'.
'A watershed moment for #MeToo'.
'A coup for social media coverage versus mainstream media'.
All of these points and so much more were brought to light last May, when a six-week civil defamation trial unfolded on the global televised stage, touted as a tale of Hollywood excess, domestic violence and famous figureheads being made to divulge intimate details of their relationship, while their legal teams had a showdown over legal principles of defamation.
The coverage of the Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard defamation trial permeated the world's collective consciousness via television, print and online social media platforms for the duration of the six weeks.
To date, the trial has continued to be a source of commentary months after, even after a jury panel of local citizens handed down the crucial verdict on the 1st June.
It became almost inescapable, with editorials in newspapers, countless tweets expressing vocal opinions and a plethora of short-form videos on TikTok expressing humourous and disparaging viewpoints regarding the witnesses, counsel and the parties themselves.
As a practicing lawyer at the start of a promising career, the legal foundation of defamation was something that I had learned as part of my undergraduate degree, received more specific insights in law school and continue to further my understanding with the assistance of progressing case law and precedents.
To see a case unfold in another jurisdiction would be an educational opportunity, at least. It would be worthwhile to be able to watch the American judicial system and observe the jury trial in practice. Personal taste in movies aside, the history of this case is still a fascinating one.
It was still an attractive prospect given the popular culture aspect involving a well-known celebrity such as Johnny Depp, the actor who portrayed a great variety of roles in his decades-long career, yet even on the judicial side, there was a great deal to observe and take in, no matter if you were a layperson with a particular interest in the law or a seasoned practitioner with a comparative curiousity.
There was something for everyone, televised via mainstream media channels and online via YouTube, even broadcast via newly minted social media channels such as TikTok. The access was astounding, to see behind the doors right into a bona fide courtroom to watch a judicial process being administered in real-time.
Rules of evidence. Opening and closing statements. Objection, hearsay. Exhibits, redactions, testimony, deposition after deposition after deposition.
All the elements of a trial were being broadcasted onscreen, and it would be quite the undertaking to take on a wealth of legal knowledge in the space of six weeks.
But never fear, for there emerged a category of online content creators who practiced as lawyers in the United States, with a wealth of knowledge about the legal system, the rules of evidence and the facets of defamation.
LawTube and LegalTube, two major online community circles of lawyers who produce informative legal content via YouTube and social media, emerged as one of the more prolific sources of information regarding the trial, providing up-to-the-minute live commentary during the full court days, answering frequent questions posed by the viewing public and being a refreshing source of entertainment for anyone baffled by the often-complex, choice legal arguments.
Each legal commentator brought a unique style to their videos and commentary while covering the trial from a professional's perspective, which was a great boon for their respective channels and allowed people from all over the world to weigh in and take in new knowledge.
Emily D. Baker, a pop culture legal commentator and former Deputy District Attorney, who covered high-profile trials including the Britney Spears conservatorship hearings, sparkled with a charming personality and sense of humour that led to exponential growth in her channel's subscribers as the trial progressed.
During the court proceedings, Ms. Baker would watch the trial on her YouTube channel stream and offer amusing interjections at various points, while maintaining a seasoned and informed viewpoint as a lawyer, which was a refreshing guide as a fellow member of the legal profession.
Her channel and podcast cover trials and cases gripping the headlines, delivered with a unique, witty tone that provides ample guidance to her community of 'Law Nerds'.
LegalBytes and HoegLaw were two more channels covering the case in depth along with the surrounding headlines published by the media, comparing the viewpoints of journalists and the facts presented at trial, demonstrating a clear divide between the journalistic stories and what was occurring in the courtroom each day.
Ian Runkle or 'Runkle of the Bailey', a criminal defence and firearms practitioner from Canada, was one of a group of lawyers in attendance during the trial for several days and presented confidential breakdowns of the jury panel, their reactions and demeanours. His insights did not reveal the true identities of the jury members, only how each reacted to the lengthy testimonies each day. He continues to provide excellent commentaries regarding historic trails, firearms law in Canada, current trails and collaborations with other LawTube channels.
Another channel that shot to fame during crucial testimony of the trial was the aptly named 'Law and Lumber', featuring experienced litigator, Rob Moreton, who practices in the town of Fairfax, Virginia, where the trial took place and had a particular insight into the courtroom, having participated in trial matters there previously.
His video debunking evidence of a splintered wooden bedframe became an online sensation, with his dedicated practical hobby of wood-working coming into play to demonstrate the physics of how the wood would typically break if applied with a certain tool and amount of pressure required to produce a unique pattern of splintering.
The circumstances surrounding the broken bedframe were in turn raised by Camille Vasquez, one of the lead attorneys on Johnny Depps' team, on day 17 of the trial during a cross-examination of Ms. Heard, nine days after Mr. Moreton's demonstration. This proved to be a fascinating evidentiary development when a pocket knife was pointed out on the bed.
Certainly, the trial brought the online legal commentator community together for a common purpose, and I was grateful that I watched their daily recaps, explored their opinions and appreciated their qualified viewpoints. To this day, I still enjoy their content and continue to learn about the law in America, historic trials and cases of note.
Being able to learn from such lawyers was a genuinely positive experience, given that the trial often delved into heavy, emotive topics such as domestic violence and serious allegations of abuse. Having their perspectives allowed me, as a genuinely empathic person, to sift through the emotion and understand the core of the rules of evidence and the formulation of the arguments, almost as an on-demand discussion group.
There is so much more to discuss regarding the case and its impact over many months, and I hope to cover more aspects in future posts, including discussing the two legal teams, expert witnesses and the testimonies of the two parties, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
Watch this space for next time and thank you for reading.