J. Benjamin Rottenborn

“You're being asked to decide a very simple question, and that question is, were the words that Amber used in the December 18th, 2018 opinion piece, that was published in the Washington Post, protected, free speech under the First Amendment or not?”

Defines Heard's core trial theory: the case turns solely on First Amendment protection, not on the truth or falsity of abuse allegations.

“He wants to turn this case into a six-week long, public spectacle of the most intimate aspects of their relationship and their marriage.”

Frames Depp's litigation strategy as designed to humiliate Heard rather than vindicate a legitimate legal claim.

“Johnny Depp's reputation is in tatters. His career is in free fall. But it's because of problems that he created. Problems that he is responsible for.”

Central damages argument: Depp's career decline is self-caused by substance abuse and behavior, not caused by the op-ed.

“I love him so much, but he needs help, and I don't have all the information to help alone.”

Rottenborn reads Christi's own May 2014 text to Amber aloud, placing her admission that Depp 'needs help' into the record against her minimizing testimony.

“Do you see where he says Will hit you when I get back doll Come over for a spot of purple and we'll fix her flabby ass nice and good”

Rottenborn reads Depp's August 2016 text aloud to the jury, establishing the predicate for the UK-testimony impeachment on its meaning.

“Our dear friend got a few wins in court this week, and, yet, some of us continue to belittle him”

Excerpt from Deuters's social media post read aloud at sidebar, directly triggering the witness credibility issue and jury dismissal.

“Steaks were excellent and pondering, though we will likely have dinner here. Steaks were excellent. A couple of bottles of perfect wine. We then pounded an entire bottle of tequila!!! Then the savagery commenced!! Good morning!!!”

Rottenborn reads Depp's own text aloud, directly contradicting Bett's prior testimony that he had seen Depp drink only a glass or two of wine at a time.

“I prevented them from calling po-po. Glad you had fun. You mean dinner in room or restaurant?”

Rottenborn reads Bett's reply text, establishing that Bett himself acknowledged preventing a police call and expressed approval of Depp's conduct — undercutting his role as a neutral security professional.

“Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain.”

Reading aloud the joint divorce statement Depp signed in 2016 — used to challenge his defamation narrative at its foundation.

“I got drunk and destroyed my room. There are hookers and animals in here.”

Rottenborn reading verbatim from Depp's April 2012 email to Deuters, admitted as Exhibit 143.

“To your point, Your Honor, that's exactly why the pictures need to come in now. Otherwise, the jury's not going to know what Officer Saenz is talking about. In closing, when the officer says she didn't see anything in these pictures, they're going to have no idea.”

Rottenborn argues the photos are necessary context for the jury to follow Saenz's deposition testimony and closing argument references.

“She didn't pay $5 million to blast Hunter Thompson's ashes out of a cannon, did she?”

Rottenborn contrasts Heard's financial conduct with Depp's spending habits to undercut the premise that she bore responsibility for his financial problems.

“And the reason I'm asking, sir, is because you just gave the exact opposite testimony here. So that's why we pointed that out.”

Encapsulates the impeachment after White's UK trial testimony calling the April 21 briefing 'catastrophic' directly contradicted his trial testimony.

“I got a call from Disney last week saying he showed up five hours late for ADR work in London for Pirates 5. I really need to speak to him before he starts work on his next project in LA”

Rottenborn reads the admitted Tracey Jacobs text aloud, establishing White had prior knowledge of Depp's on-set punctuality problems despite denying it.

“So one of these two sworn statements, either what you just said in court just now that it was found six miles away or this, one of these is false, correct?”

The impeachment pivot — Rottenborn frames the contradiction as a binary between two sworn statements, one of which must be false.

“When Ms. Lloyd and I entered his residence, Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp were having a verbal argument.”

Rottenborn reads aloud from McGivern's UK witness statement, which directly contradicts his direct testimony that he met Heard in the lobby before entering the penthouse.

“Despite the fact that 2017, he made more than twice as much as he's made in any year over the last five years, correct?”

Frames the 2017 base year as a statistical outlier, implying Spindler's selection inflated the projected damages by anchoring to an unrepresentative peak year.

“So if 2017 was clean, then the first 352 days of 2018 were also clean, weren't they, sir?”

Rottenborn's sharpest methodological challenge: the op-ed was published December 18, 2018, so Spindler's rationale for excluding all of 2018 as a base year is internally inconsistent.

“if Mr. Depp abused Ms. Heard, physically, verbally, emotionally, or psychologically even one time, then she wins on those claims. Then she wins.”

Core argument of the motion to strike: undisputed nonphysical abuse by Depp renders the domestic abuse statements non-false as a matter of law.

“Whether Ms. Heard was abusive to Mr. Depp and whether she ever committed abuse towards someone else is not an essential element of any claim or defense in this case. It's just not.”

Core of Rottenborn's Rule 404/405 opposition, arguing the parties are asymmetrically situated with respect to character evidence.

“It's deeply troubling. It appears to be, I know it's up to you, a blatant violation of the Court's order.”

Rottenborn frames the alpaca photo as a court order violation with direct jury-integrity implications.

“Mr. Depp's online army of support is zealous, to say the least, and when things like this go viral, it only makes it harder for the jury to avoid.”

Rottenborn identifies Depp's large online following as a structural jury-contamination risk amplified by any courthouse media incident.

“the mechanism that was described by Mr. Depp and demonstrated by Mr. Depp is inconsistent with the injury pattern that's found on the images and the description.”

Rottenborn reads the truncated half of Moore's deposition answer, restoring the opinion Vasquez's selective reading had obscured: Depp's own account is inconsistent with the physical evidence.

“that's total sandbagging. It's gamesmanship. It's not appropriate”

Defense characterizes Depp's team's interrogatory response — pointing to a Bates range rather than naming Kulber — as a deliberate attempt to obscure a rebuttal witness.

“Is there anything about the cast that was put on Mr. Depp's hand on March 20th, 2015, that would have prevented him from doing this damage to Ms. Heard's closet on March 23rd, 2015?”

The framing question that anchors the entire cross — linking the cast directly to the alleged closet destruction three days after surgery.

“I just, in my head, instantly think of Kate Moss on the stairs when I swing at him.”

Rottenborn quotes Heard's trial testimony — the single sentence that opened the door to Kate Moss's appearance and defined the strict scope of her permitted testimony.

“you're being paid a thousand dollars an hour for your work on this case, correct?”

Opens by framing Gilbert as a paid advocate, a standard bias challenge to expert witnesses.

“the undisputed evidence shows that Mr. Depp did not -- did abuse Ms. Heard, at a minimum, emotionally, verbally, psychologically and otherwise. That's undisputed.”

Central argument in the motion to strike: even a single act of abuse in any form would defeat Depp's defamation claim.

“If you didn't take pictures, it didn't happen. If you did take pictures, they're fake. If you didn't tell your friends, you're lying. And if you did tell your friends, they're part of the hoax.”

Rottenborn's rhetorical framework summarizing what he characterizes as Depp's team's position on victim credibility, delivered as the opening of the closing argument.

“you cannot simultaneously protect and uphold the First Amendment and find in favor of Johnny Depp on his claim. You simply cannot.”

Core First Amendment argument framing the verdict as a choice between constitutional protection of speech and siding with Depp.

“it is time to tell Mr. Depp this was his last chance, tell him to move on with his life, tell him to let Amber move on with hers, stand up for the freedom of speech, stand up for the First Amendment.”

Rottenborn's closing words to the jury, framing the verdict as a statement on free speech rather than just the outcome of a private dispute.

“If you believe that Depp was abusive to Amber one time ever, in any of the various forms of abuse, not only physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, any of the ways of abuse, then your job is very easy.”

Frames the low threshold Rottenborn is urging for the jury's verdict on both the claim and counterclaim.

“the suggestion that Amber's abuse allegations are a hoax is vicious and vile.”

Direct characterization of Waldman's statements as the core of the defamation counterclaim.

“Mr. Depp's malice is Mr. Waldman's malice.”

Condenses the agency theory of the counterclaim into a single repeated formulation.

“Give Amber Heard her voice back. Give Amber Heard her life back.”

The final ask to the jury, closing the defendant's case.