David Spiegel

“A lot. Probably in the tens of thousands.”

Establishes the volume of Spiegel's clinical experience, supporting his qualification as an expert.

“Substance of abuse, both in their short term and the long term, can affect the brain in terms of mood; behavior; cognition, meaning attention, concentration, memory, ability to control your behavior; as well as your overall level of functioning.”

Previews the defense theory that substance abuse impairs behavior and self-control, relevant to Depp's conduct throughout the relationship.

“when we are discussing intimate partner violence, I think it's imperative for the jury to know we are talking about repetitive behavior over periods of time, and the type of abuse can be any physical, psychological, sexual.”

Frames the IPV standard Spiegel will apply to the evidence — emphasizing pattern and control rather than isolated incidents.

“Reading about it and writing a review article are completely two different things, sir.”

Spiegel's sharpest rebuttal to Dennison's framing — distinguishes active scholarly synthesis from passive reading.

“you cannot separate intimate partner violence and say that is a separate rubric aside from trauma”

Spiegel's recurring defense of his credentials: IPV is a subset of trauma, not a freestanding specialty requiring separate publication.

“Correct. Not one of them have IPV. It does have trauma, but not IPV.”

Clean admission — none of roughly 80 publications name IPV in the title — the central credential gap Dennison sought to establish.

“I requested to interview Mr. Depp twice, and both times, Mr. Depp and his lawyers refused.”

Establishes Spiegel's request for a direct examination and Depp's refusal, later addressed by the court to clarify that two motions for a compelled exam were also denied.

“Mr. Depp has behaviors that are consistent with both someone who has a substance use disorder as well as consistent behaviors for someone who is a perpetrator of intimate partner violence.”

Spiegel's central conclusion, framed in risk-factor language as required by the court's scope limitations.

“the APA task force on violence in the family defined, more or less, this topic of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence as recurrent abusive behavior by means of psychological, sexual, or physical maltreatment for the purpose of achieving control or maintaining power, authority, and control.”

Anchors Spiegel's testimony in an authoritative professional definition, framing control as the defining element of IPV.

“it was offered twice that I could do an evaluation of Mr. Depp directly, and both times, Mr. Depp and/or his lawyers decided that that wasn't going to happen.”

Underscores that Spiegel sought direct access and was denied, supporting his Goldwater Rule rebuttal and the breadth of his record-based review.

“No. As an expert witness, I have not acted unethically. And if you want the jury to believe that expert witnesses are unethical, then I guess that's for them to decide.”

Spiegel's bottom-line answer on the Goldwater Rule ethics challenge — a guarded denial that nonetheless frames the question as one for the jury.

“So I didn't call Mr. Depp an idiot. I certainly called that planning idiot. I didn't call him an idiot.”

Spiegel's attempt to reframe the deposition 'idiot' remark — the tortured distinction between the man and his planning underscored the credibility damage.

“I will concede to you a hundred percent if that is the standard and people have done that with acting, then I apologize and that was wrong on my part. If that's the standard, I'm wrong. I don't know.”

Full concession that his earpiece-based cognitive-deficit inference was potentially unfounded, ending the cross on a note of acknowledged error.

“I have not rendered any opinion based on publicly available records.”

Direct rebuttal of the Goldwater Rule objection from cross — Spiegel draws a clean line between publicly available armchair diagnosis and opinion based on confidential private records.

“Not only did he not, he referred to Mr. Depp as a narcissist too.”

Spiegel reveals that Depp and Heard's own couples therapist, Connell Cowan, never diagnosed Heard with BPD and independently characterized Depp as a narcissist — a significant third-party corroboration offered through Heard's expert.

“She had traits. She did not meet In the - her own evaluation, she did not have the full - endorse enough criteria to meet the criteria for borderline personality disorder and/or histrionic personality disorder. She definitely had traits; she did not have the disorder by going by the strict number of criteria.”

Spiegel uses Curry's own methodology against the BPD diagnosis, arguing that by Curry's own findings Heard fell short of the diagnostic threshold — reframing the plaintiff's expert evidence as support for the defense position.

“Did it - nothing - no, my opinion has not swayed an iota.”

Spiegel's closing confirmation that cross-examination left his opinions intact, the standard rehabilitation endpoint for an expert witness redirect.