Johnny Depp's lawyer, Camille Vasquez, says Amber Heard's defamation trial was 'not a Me Too' case
| Last updated
The American attorney became a celebrity overnight during the six-week trial as she represented the Pirates of the Caribbean actor in a Virginia court.
Months after Depp was awarded $15 million (AUD$23m or £8m) in damages, Vasquez sat down with Natalie Morales on CBS’s The Talk to discuss the highly publicised trial.
During the interview, Morales asked Vasquez: “Did you ever hesitate as a woman taking on a case with such a high-profile celebrity? Especially in this post-Me Too movement.”
The lawyer responded: “No because I know Johnny as a person, I’ve worked with him for four years. I believed him.
“You know, to me, this case was not a Me Too case.
"This was about what happened between these two people, and in a lot of ways, if you want to look at it as a Me Too case, it was an opportunity for Amber to tell her story, have an investigation happen in a court of law, and a jury came back and said ‘no we don’t believe you’.
“But I never hesitated because I believed Johnny, and I was an advocate for him, and I wanted the opportunity to give him his life back. He deserved that.”
Shortly after Depp won the trial, psychologist Jessica Taylor described it as the ‘end of Me Too’, fearing that the case's outcome would prevent sexual assault and domestic violence victims from speaking out.
She added it would open up the ‘floodgates’ of defamation lawsuits.
She told Rolling Stone: “Survivors watching this will rethink everything they say out loud about what happened to them, and the potential of being sued and dragged through a court process for saying something they know is true, but they could be found guilty of defamation.
“It’s a scary place to be.”
In July, Heard and her legal team filed an appeal against the verdict of their defamation trial, as the actor was ordered to pay her ex-husband $10.35 million (AUD $15.95m or £5.93m) in damages.
A spokesperson for Heard released a statement explaining the decision to appeal while also taking aim at the social media smear campaign against the 36-year-old.
They said: "We believe the court made errors that prevented a just and fair verdict consistent with the First Amendment. We are therefore appealing the verdict.
"While we realise today's filing will ignite the Twitter bonfires, there are steps we need to take to ensure both fairness and justice."