Jury Selection
2,407 linesCOURT BAILIFF: All rise.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
THE COURT: I understand there's some issues, Motion in Limine, we take up after we empanel the jury later this afternoon. Okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Anything else?
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. CHEW: Unfortunately we have a very quick preliminary matter to address with you. We know that the time is pressing.
THE COURT: Well, that's fine. Do you want to approach the bench on it or something?
MR. CHEW: Your Honor, over the weekend, Ms. Heard put on Twitter and Instagram a statement where she's make essentially Ms. Bredehoft's opening argument. And she's saying she never mentioned Johnny in the case; she'.s going to be in court today. This was put out on Saturday. It was picked up by the Hollywood Reporter. It was picked up by the New York Post. It's pretty outrageous, and it's exactly what Your Honor had ordered us not to do. It's inconceivable, Your Honor, that Ms. Heard would ha\;e done this without being green-lit by her counsel.
MR. CHEW: It's really evil, and it comes on the heels, Your Honor, two days before she gets her picture in the Washington Post, designed to taint the jury.
MR. CHEW: So at a minimum, we would ask that the -- it be added to the voir dire. We really think that there should be some kind of sanctions, that Ms. Bredehoft not be allowed to ask the questions or that her strikes be stricken. This is exactly what you told us not to do on February 9, and she's been flirting with this ever since.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, first of all I did not know about it. I learned about it after the :fact. She did not discuss it with me.
THE COURT: It's in the order.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it against Your Honor's order? I mean, because you said we're not going to.
THE COURT: I said this court will be tried in the courtroom
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: And now two days before the jury panel, she's going to be --
MS. BREDEHOFT: I do, and I wish I had known in advance so I could have stopped it. I didn't know that she was going to do it. I think her intent on it -- in fact I know her intent on it -- was to just to her supporters to say she was going to be out of commission
THE COURT: Well, that's fine. But other than that, (indiscernible)
MS. BREDEHOFT: Understood, Your Honor. We have another issue as well. We got contacted by counsel for Warner Brothers -- you may remember the issue of the letter from counsel from Warner Brothers saying this is going to be in my declaration; this is what our declaration would say, and we have a Motion in Limine on if He contacted us on Friday night. The press had a copy of Walter Hamada's deposition which has been marked confidential. I can guarantee we wouldn't have leaked it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: T.HE COURT: I need to focus on other things now.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask the jury if they saw it as part of the publicity.
THE COURT: This tainted my jury. There's going to be repercussions. I'm going to reserve it for now, but if it comes out in the jury that they have seen it, there's going to be repercussions. I may take your strikes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, I --
THE COURT: There ought to be a sanction for that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: There's definitely been quote.s from the Depp team in the newspapers, Your Honor.
MR. CHEW: There's been nothing. Your Honor -- please stop. There's been nothing from the Depp team and nothing from Mr. Depp whatsoever.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I understand, Your Honor. And I can represent to the court absolutely I had no idea.
MR. CHEW: She should have had an idea. We told our client exactly what you said on February 9th, and I said to Your Honor "Absolutely. I understand. Mr. Depp understands," and he's said nothing.
THE COURT: I'm going to reserve the issue.
THE COURT: I'll take it under advisement, but I'm not going to instruct.
THE COURT: All right. Are there any other preliminary matters before the jury comes . in?
THE COURT: All right. I just want to make sure. Ms. Vasquez.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted to understand before the jury corp.es in, and to have an understanding from you, if it becomes apparent that there is follow-up of--
THE COURT: Could you speak in the microphone so the court reporter can hear you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thanks, your Honor.
MS. VASQUEZ: If it becomes apparent, Your Honor, based on voir dire questions that a very short follow-up may be necessary; would you appreciate if I approach the bench before asking the jurors? I'm talking very short follow-up.
THE COURT: If they're short follow-ups, that's fine. If I decide that they're going a little lengthy, I will let you know.
MS. VASQUEZ: I understand, Your Honor. I will keep it very short, just if there's a follow-up necessary.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything from Ms. Bredehoft?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I didn't hear.
THE COURT: She just said that if she had to do a little followup for voir dire, would she just go to follow-up with some of the questions, if that's okay, or should she approach.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think it depends upon the question.
THE COURT: I think it does. That's what I already answered.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, we have --
THE COURT: I need you to use the microphone for the court reporter. I'm going to try to start taking you into --
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's good, it's going to be hard to do.
THE COURT: Good practice.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll work on it. Your Honor, my understanding is that there might be 10 people in the courtroom who are on the witness list. Could I just get an assurance from counsel for Depp that there is none?
MR. CHEW: Your Honor, Mr.-Bett is here who's on the witness list, but -- oh, no, he's not here actually. I apologize.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you. I just want to make sure we don't have an issue before we start.
THE COURT: You understand which rows you get, right, for your row that -- the second row actually might be empty.
COURT BAILIFF: We thought it would be easier for the jurors for the voir dire --
THE COURT: All right. I want to make sure so I can introduce who's at your table today to the jury. All right. I want to make sure I get your names right. Ms. Meyers, right? Okay. That man I know. Who else is in the back there for me?
ROBINETTE: Paulette Robinette.
THE COURT: What's your last name, ma'am?
ROBINETTE: Robinette.
THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Robinette.
KLEYNHANS: Amy Kleynhans.
THE COURT: How do you spell your last name?
KLEYNHANS: K-L-E-Y-N-H-A-N-S.
THE COURT: And you say Kleynhans?
ROBINETTE: Kleynhans.
THE COURT: Kleynhans?
KLEYNHANS: Kleynhans.
THE COURT: That's what it's going to be from now on.
MS. LECAROZ: Good morning, Your Honor. Rebecca Lecaroz.
THE COURT: Lecaroz, can you spell that -for the court reporter too?
MS. LECAROZ: L-E-C-A-R-O-Z.
THE COURT: Lecaroz, all right. We can go with that.
THE COURT: All right. And Ms. Bredehoft, your client, and Mr. Nadelhaft and Mr. Rottenborn?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. I know those two B names. All right. Anything else before the jury comes in?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: We're bringing in the jury. We're just going to do 1 through 60. Just remember to use the numbers for me, okay?
COURT BAILIFF: When I call your Number, please come forth and be seated. Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, come forward, please. number 4, Number 5, Number 6, number 7, number 8, Number 9, number 10, Number 11, number 12, number 13, and Number 14, Number 15, Number 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, have a seat right here.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if I could have all the potential jurors stand up and raise your right hands for me.
COURT CLERK: Please have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Judge Penney Azcarate, and I've been assigned to preside over this case. You've been summoned as prospective jurors in this civil case. The name of this case is John C. Depp I versus Amber Heard. The plaintiff is represented by his attorney Mr. Chew. Also the other attorneys today that he is represented by are Ms. Meyers, Ms. Robinette, Ms. Vasquez, Ms. Kleynhans, and Ms. Lecaroz, and I apologize for that if I did those name incorrectly.
THE COURT: In addition the defendant and counterclaimant is present as well, represented by her attorney, Ms. Bredehoft, and also Mr. Nadelhaft and Mr. Rottenborn are present today also for the defendant.
THE COURT: Now, the case here involves claims and counterclaims of defamation. Before we begin the process of questioning you for purpose of selecting the jury to hear the case, I want to speak to you about some of the special protocols that we have adopted in order to keep you safe along with other individuals involved in the trial. So in designing these protocols, we have worked closely with the clerk of the court, the sheriff and her deputies, and with the health department, and we appreciate all the assistance we have been provided.
THE COURT: As you know, the COVID-19 screening signs outside the courthouse today were to ensure that a juror who might be experiencing symptoms who might otherwise place others at risk were instructed not to enter the courthouse. This courtroom, the jury assembly rooms, and the bathrooms will be thoroughly cleaned each evening. The county has provided a special cleaning team for that purpose. We have provided hand sanitizer stations throughout the courthouse, and in order to minimize necessity of jurors sharing materials, we will provide each juror with their own set of jury instructions at end of case so that you will not need to share IO those instructions.
THE COURT: Gloves and hand sanitizers will be provided for you to use in handling any objects that may be admitted during the trial, and once the trial begins, we'll ask you to sit in the same seat in the jury box after each recess.
THE COURT: Masks are optional; however, I would encourage those individuals who are not vaccinated to wear a mask. Even if you are vaccinated, you are welcome to wear a mask. Please be considerate to all jurors and recognize we all have different comfort levels as we progress out of this pandemic, okay?
THE COURT: Now, all these policies and procedures I have been created with cooperation and consultation with the Fairfax County Health Department, and having a fair and impartial trial and your safety is my top priority. If at any time during the proceedings you feel uncomfortable or you need any clarification, please do not hesitate to ask, and we'll take care of any issue you may have.
THE COURT: So both the plaintiff and defendant have a right to a trial by jury, and that's why you're all here. I would like to say thank you for coming here today, but I know you didn't have much of a choice, but welcome regardless. Jury service is not only a civic duty, but can be very rewarding to not only take part in our legal system but to play a pivotal role as well. We are one of the few countries where a jury of peers stands in judgment. We just couldn't do it without you. As American citizens, we are afforded many opportunities and benefits just by being Americans.
THE COURT: We also have responsibilities as citizens,and doing our civic duty is one of them. No one is ever excited about it, but it's an integral part of our judicial system, and I hope you'll see it as an opportunity to be an active part of this Constitutional right.
THE COURT: In addition, other citizens in this country are wearing a uniform and away from their families for years at a time, and we're not asking that of you. We're just asking for your civic duty for jury service, and I hope that you take it IO seriously for me.
THE COURT: In addition, in this case particularly, you may have noticed that there are cameras in the courtroom. This trial will be televised; however, jurors will not be televised at all, and selection of the jury today is not televised, okay? There is an overflow room where there are members of the public watching today, but nothing is being televised at this time. And in order to maintain your privacy as much as we can, we will be using numbers in addressing you today. So I would ask that you just respond with numbers and no names today as well. I will seal the names of the jurors with this case that will be in the jury; however, once the case is over, those names will no longer be sealed, so I wanted to let you to know that ahead of time, okay, when we're talking about this particular case. All right?
THE COURT: Now, so voir dire today is going to be a little differently. So bear with us because you are going to be shuffled around a little bit today, and I apologize in advance for that. Okay? I'm going to ask you several questions concerning your qualifications to serve on this jury. Please listen to each question carefully, and if at any time you prefer to answer a question at the bench privately, just let me know, and we'll come up here with just the attorneys so we can answer -- or discuss your question or your answer, okay?
THE COURT: If you don't understand any question asked, you can ask for a clarification. And just remember we do have a court reporter here so that we do have a microphone that we'll be able to take around to get you so she can get every word down for you, okay?
THE COURT: All right. So one of the first questions I just want to ask you all concerns whether you should be excused for hardship based on the expected duration of this trial and other considerations. Now, the attorneys estimate that evidence will require six weeks; which should include deliberations. Because of a mandatory judges conference that I have to attend, there will be a one-week break in the middle of the triaL okay?
THE COURT: So just to give you a little perspective, this means Monday through Thursday each week leading to Memorial Day weekend, we will have trial except for one week in May. Okay. So we don't have jury trials on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays; it will just be Monday through Thursday. The week in May that we will not have trial is the week of May 9th to the 12th, so there will be no court in this matter on those days.
THE COURT: There's -- again, no court on Fridays, and so you don't have to report on Fridays. In addition court is from 10:00 a.m. in the morning to 5: 00 p.m. at night each day. You will not be sequestered, so you will go home every day. So we'll begin at 10:00 a.m., concluded by 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. We'll take morning breaks around 11:15 or 11:30, and we'll take afternoon breaks around 3: 15, 3:30, and then we'll take a one hour for lunch from 1 to 2. So I just want to give you all that information up front so you know for your planning purposes what you may have to deal with.
THE COURT: I recognize that the prospect of being here for a trial of this duration will be problematic for some of you. Everyone has work; everyone has family and obligations. And we recognize that you have upcoming appointments and other obligations that you would need to reschedule or cancel if you become a juror in this case, but please understand, however, that we cannot conduct this jury without jurors. So it's vitally important that juries represent a fair cross-section of the community; therefore, I may not be able to excuse you from service as a juror in this case if -- depending on your reason. So I just want to let you know that ahead of time.
THE COURT: So if -- so that's my first question.
THE COURT: If you need a moment, this is the only time I'll allow you to do, but if you need a moment to check your phones, check your calendar for the next six, seven weeks, I don't mind you doing it if you just take it out for that limited purposes only, or if you have a calendar, you want to look to make sure you can be a juror in this case for that duration, all right.
THE COURT: So if you want to take a moment to do that, I'll give you that moment.
THE COURT: All right. So the question I'm going to ask you, and if you just raise your hand to the question, "Will service as a juror in this case present a hardship for you that would make it difficult or impossible for you to serve as a juror for a trial of this duration?" And I'll start over in the box. If you just keep your hands up for me, and we'll just put -- let me just get all the hands up.
THE COURT: So we've got Number 1, Number 5, Number 8, Number 9, Number 10, and Number 13.
THE COURT: Okay. And why don't I just start with the people in the box first, and then we'll go from there.
THE COURT: Okay. Number 1.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am What's the reason?
COURT BAILIFF: She want to speak privately, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. If you want to approach the bench, you can do that.
THE COURT: All right Yes, ma'am You can keep your voice down.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I couldn't tell if you're on microphone or not.
THE COURT: I am a professional health care worker, and it was a hardship, actually, today for them to .find coverage for me.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Because we're short staffed.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: And at the end of the month is my last day. I put my termination in for retirement, so I'm selling my house and moving.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Does anybody have any objection for her to be off the jury panel? All right. Thank you, ma'am You can have a seat way back in the courtroom, okay?
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Let me just go through them all. Let me just hold on.
THE COURT: All right. Number 5. Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: My daughter's having surgery.
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: My daughter is having surgery.
THE COURT: Oh, she's having surgery? When's she having surgery?
THE COURT: This Thursday.
THE COURT: This Thursday. Okay. Anybody have any objection since her daughter is having surgery?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Vasquez? Okay. All right. You can have a seat in the far back of the courtroom, please.
THE COURT: All right. Number 8, yes, sir.
THE COURT: JUROR 'NUMBER 8: Yeah. I have a vacation planned this week All right. Where are you going to?
THE COURT: (Indiscernible), Utah.
THE COURT: Okay. And is your --your family vacation?
THE COURT: Not family. It's a friends (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Okay. And is it something you've been planning for a while?
THE COURT: Yeah. It's yearly.
THE COURT: Okay. You have plane tickets and everything ready to go?
JUROR NUMBER 8: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody have an objection to going to Utah?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: No? It looks like you're going to Utah. Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: Yes. I'm a preschool teacher of a small church preschool, and it's just a hardship for six weeks to be out.
THE COURT: Okay. It's a preschool. They couldn't get anybody to --
THE COURT: Not for six weeks.
THE COURT: THE.COURT: Okay. Does anybody have a --
MS. VASQUEZ: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. That's all right. Ma'am, you can have a seat in the back of the courtroom All right.
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
THE COURT: I have a financial hardship.
THE COURT: A financial hardship. Do you work for yourself, sir?
THE COURT: I do not. I'm employed by a company.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
THE COURT: I'm employed by a company.
THE COURT: Well, the company has to pay you for jury duty.
THE COURT: Two weeks.
THE COURT: They pay you for two weeks; after that, they don't pay you for any more?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Any follow-up question for that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Isn't that illegal?
THE COURT: Yeah, I think so. I think they have to pay you. I can write you a letter.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay? I think you're good. We'll keep you on, okay?
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: Number 13.
THE COURT: I have two young children. We both work-- my wife and I work full-time. Our schedules don't align. And we have limited childcare issues, and I also have professional reasons, but I want to discuss it up there.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. We can just deal with the childcare. Any issue with the IO childcare issue?
THE COURT: UNKNOWN SPEAKER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, that's fine. Childcare is actually one that you could have done with even -- not even had to be here. All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: So if I could have everybody in the courtroom that has a serious conflict for handling a case with this duration, if you could just stand for me, I think it would be easier. All right. Let's do that. Okay. Ali right. Just stay standing, okay, if you have a hardship. All right. Start with number 17.
THE COURT: I have three children at home, and my husband is sick, so he cannot take care of the kids so I have to be there.
THE COURT: He can't take care of the kids?
THE COURT: He's sick
THE COURT: Or he doesn't want to take care of the kids?
THE COURT: I don't know. But he's very sick today. I don't know. I don't know if he has COVID or not. I didn't take a test yet, but I don't know if that's going to happen. So it's (indiscernible).
THE COURT: Okay. So you're concerned about his health, and you might have issues with that. All right. Anybody have issues with that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have no issue.
THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat in back of the courtroom Thank you if you could hand it to 19.
THE COURT: My company has in annual meeting every May, and I'm part of the lead team on it and will be out at the end of May.
THE COURT: At the end of May?
THE COURT: In the last week before Memorial Day.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'm not sure -- I can't say for sure whether or not we'd be done by that time. It's possible -- is that something that you could miss? I mean, we all have sacrifices and everything going on.
THE COURT: I guess, yeah.
THE COURT: All right. If you could just stay put, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, ma'am All right. Number -- well, that's fine . We'll go in order. It's easier. Number 59.
THE COURT: I have a family vacation that's been planned, airline tickets, rental car, hotel.
THE COURT: All right. Where are you going to?
THE COURT: Norlin, South Dakota.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think vacations are on the list, so you're okay. If you could have a seat in the back of the courtroom, then, today we'll excuse you. Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: And, ma'am, I can't see your number. I'm sorry. 58. Okay. Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: I care for my elderly mother.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Anything else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine, ma'am Thank you. Have a seat in the back of the courtroom
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 24, is that correct? We're all mixed up back there. That's fine.
JUROR NUMBER 24: Yes. Can I speak privately?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, come on. Approach.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE COURT: 13 was excused. All right. Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: I am currently undergoing in vitro fertilization, so this week I'm loaded up with hormones and --
THE COURT: You had me at that; that's fine. You can have a seat at the back.
THE COURT: All right. Number 24 is in the back of the courtroom All right. And where did that leave us?
COURT BAILIFF: Number 23.
THE COURT: Number 23, thank you. Number 23.
THE COURT: I can't sit long. I have a blood circulation problem
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we can accommodate you. I mean if you have to stand in the jury box, you can stand in the jury box whenever you need to. You can sit down, and if you need to take extra breaks, we can accommodate that. I don't want you to think you can't serve because of any health issues.
THE COURT: Would that accommodate you if we allow you to stand and go from there?
THE COURT: I also have a hearing problem
THE COURT: Hearing, I can take care of. I have extra things you can put in for your ears. I want to make sure you had the chance to serve
THE COURT: Yeah. But I can't sit for long. I have to stand up.
THE COURT: That's okay. And I'll allow you to stand up if you're on the jury, okay? Okay. You're fine, sir. Thank you Could you pass it to 22.
THE COURT: Good morning. It would be a hardship for my job.
THE COURT: Okay. Could you be a little more specific?
THE COURT: To be out that long.
THE COURT: Well, I understand. And that -- I mean, we all have work and commitments, and I know -- and I understand that will be a hardship, but, yeah, I mean, you'll have the evenings. You'll have Fridays, but I really can't get you off the jury.
THE COURT: Especially with the level of support that I provide, it would be hard to have backup while I'm out, but if that's something I can be considered for, then I would --
THE COURT: We really need to keep you on the jury at this point, the jury panel, okay?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right. And then on Fridays if you need extra time in the mornings and things, you let me know, okay, if you're on the jury. Okay?
THE COURT: PROSPECTIVE JUROR 22: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You want to come forward, sir? Yes. Number 33. He would like to approach the bench.
JUROR NUMBER 33: Number one, my family and I have only one car at this time, and I have to drive my son every day in the morning to
THE COURT: Well, that's okay. We don't start until 10.
THE COURT: The one thing there. Number two, I'm an IT director in the company. There my company looking for me to join every day. Six week is too big time for me not to be there. I could have been there for two or three days. I would love to be here, but six weeks is too big time.
THE COURT: Well, all right. I mean, your company has to understand what you're doing. And so, I mean, you'll be there every Friday, but I can't--
THE COURT: Only on Fridays?
THE COURT: You're not here on Fridays, yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah. But it's only on Fridays. So for this thing, I need to come every, like, every day, Monday through Thursday.
THE COURT: Right. That's right. That's the jury service.
JUROR NUMBER 33: That's pretty big.
THE COURT: I understand that's big. That's why we bring it up, but that's not a hardship, sir, to get you off. Okay?
THE COURT: I-- I think my company may kind of really think about some other options. I've just been really promoted, they went there.
THE COURT: I understand, but you have to understand how a jury serves. It's very important and a Constitutional issue, okay? All right. You can go to your seat. Thank you. He stays.
THE COURT: All right. And who's next? 36.
THE COURT: Can we speak privately?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure. Come on up, sir. Yes, sir. Good morning. That's okay.
THE COURT: It's a work situation I have. I work for the federal government, only two people in my office. I know in a couple weeks, he will be out for two weeks, so ...
THE COURT: I'm sorry, sir. That's just not a reason to excuse you from the jury.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. He stays.
THE COURT: Next we have number 38; is that correct?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I would like to talk privately also.
THE COURT: Come on up.
THE COURT: Good morning, ma'am.
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Actually, I have a sister-in-law, she's suffering from blood cancer in Florida, and we just came back from there. And she's going through the bone marrow transplant. So I have to take my other sister-in-law from here --
THE COURT: Down to Florida to take care of her?
JUROR NUMBER 38: So every week we are going back and forth.
THE COURT: All right. You can have a seat in the back of the courtroom. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. I got number 60. 60, yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Yes. I work for a foreign institution, and they don't have jury duty compensation. And also I'm the head of the household, so it's like a week I can take a vacation. But if it's six weeks, it's a bit too much.
THE COURT: I understand. But just because of work, I can't get you off the panel for that reason. What do you mean "head of the household"?
THE COURT: Like, I'm the only -- I'm the only one making the income, and I work for a foreign institution. Like I work for an embassy.
THE COURT: Okay. You work for the embassy, they won't pay?
JUROR NUMBER 60: They won't pay, no.
THE COURT: That probably is correct. I want you to have a seat in the back of the courtroom for the foreign embassy. I can't help you with the foreign embassies.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see. Number 51.
THE COURT: Can I speak privately?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So I'm a self-employed person, so ...
THE COURT: I understand.
THE COURT: So the business pretty much cannot run if I have to be here for six weeks. If it's going to be like a day or two --
THE COURT: Yeah. I know. I understand. And I know it's a hardship, but it's really not a basis for me to get you off the panel on that. Hopefully on Fridays and the weekends, you can get things done, and the evenings, but I just --
THE COURT: But I, like, have it everyday.
THE COURT: You can do your work Okay?
THE COURT: Is it going to be really six weeks?
THE COURT: Well, it's going to be six weeks, but there's a one-week break in the middle of it. It's actually seven weeks with a one-week break in the middle of it.
THE COURT: Can it shorten?
THE COURT: There's always a chance. I'm hopeful, but I can't guarantee you, though, that, sir. It's not a basis to get you off, okay?
THE COURT: All right. Well, my wife is pregnant. I have small kids too, like --
THE COURT: I'm sure she stays at home and takes care of them, correct?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Good try. All right. Go ahead. That was 51, correct? All right. 49.
THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor, I also have smaller children and a childcare issue. My wife and I both work and have opposing schedules, and I -- I'm going to have a childcare issue over a lengthy trial.
THE COURT: Okay. Do they go to the daycare? Do they go to daycare or ...
THE COURT: One gets there on his O own, but I walk the other one to school every morning. He does not have daycare in the morning.
THE COURT: I understand, but we don't start until 10, so what time does school start?
THE COURT: 8:30.
THE COURT: And does somebody need-- are you there in the evening when he comes back?
JUROR NUMBER 49: Yeah. At 3-- 3:30.
THE COURT: 3:30. You have to be there at 3:30?
JUROR NUMBER 49: Yes.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have no objection.
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. You can have a seat in the back of the courtroom then, sir.
THE COURT: Number 46.
THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. I have a trip planned in two weeks to Sonoma, California, to see my son. And then on May 7th, I'm going to Budapest and Prague, nonrefundable 10 tickets.
THE COURT: Nice. Okay. I assume there's no objection to that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection.
THE COURT: You're not taking us with you, but that's okay. You can have a seat in the back of the courtroom.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: That takes care of the right side. Now let's go over to the left side.
THE COURT: All right. Number 31.
THE COURT: Also because of my job, if I can, like, short-term is okay, but I am having to do multiple roles at work, so --
THE COURT: I understand it's going to be a hardship at work, but they're just going to have to -- you're going to have to work around it, and they're going to have to work around. It's just not a reason to get you off the jury panel, okay?
THE COURT: There's nobody to do my job.
THE COURT: I understand. I understand. There's not much I can do about that. Okay?
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Number 30.
JUROR NUMBER 30: I have a nephew who is autistic, so I interchange with his mother to take care of him. He doesn't take lightly to new people, so I don't know how this is going to work.
THE COURT: All right. You take care of the child. How often do you take care of the child?
JUROR NUMBER 30: Like, three days a week, the mom goes to work. Then when I have to work, then she takes care of him.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Also, he doesn't like new people.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. You can have a seat at the back of the courtroom, ma'am Thank you. That was 30.
THE COURT: You can pass the mi crop hone to -- sir, your number? sorry, I can't see your number with your hand there.
THE COURT: 44? Yes,sir.
THE COURT: Your Honor, I can't be here on April 13 because I have a medical appointment.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to approach about medical appointment, why don't you p come, just so I can see exactly what that means?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. I just want to know what kind of medical appointment.
THE COURT: I need a blood draw on the April 13th because I went last time and --
THE COURT: So it's just a blood draw you have to get?
THE COURT: Yes, for liver function.
THE COURT: Are you on dialysis?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm on the, like, Lipitor.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I had a problem with my liver, and doctor stopped medicine. And she said, "You need to come back in, like, 30 months -- 30 days."
THE COURT: That's fine.
THE COURT: And that's April 3. That's the only day.
THE COURT: Is it local? Is it local?
THE COURT: It's local in Rockville.
THE COURT: Okay. So maybe we can work around your appointment time. Do you go in the morning? Is it in the morning, your, appointment?
THE COURT: Maybe we can talk to the doctor to get it pushed up to 9 or something?
THE COURT: No; no.
THE COURT: Well, even if it's 10:00, we could work around that. You could come in by 11?
JUROR NUMBER 44: No. Because I need about two and a half hours.
THE COURT: Two and a half hours?
JUROR NUMBER 44: I can be here at one.
THE COURT: That's something we can probably work through on that day if it came to. We can work through that. If you make it on the jury, we can work through that. We'll keep you on the panel okay?
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. And next we have -- I'm sorry. Who has the microphone? Number 42.
THE COURT: Can you hear me?
THE COURT: There you go. I heard it that time. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. also taking care of my elderly mother. She just turned 91, and she's been taking some falls.
THE COURT: Okay. Anybody have any objection with that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: Ms. Vasquez.
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat in the back of the courtroom.
THE COURT: Number 4. Yes, sir. I'm
THE COURT: Your Honor, I own and operate a small restaurant at the moment, and we're currently very short staffed, working seven days a week at the moment.
THE COURT: I understand, sir. We all have the hardships with the work. I understand, but it's just not a basis to get you off the panel, okay? All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Can I ask you in person?
THE COURT: Sure. You can come up. Leave the microphone back there, though.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: My mother had a mastectomy', and I give her physical assistance for three weeks. I don't know how- nobody there to help my mom
THE COURT: So you stay at home and you help her?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
THE COURT: Okay. You can have a seat in the back. All right. And you're number 55. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Yeah. Is it okay if I come up?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure. Just hand the microphone. Thank you.
THE COURT: This way, sir. Oh, okay. That way, sir.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
JUROR NUMBER 55: I've got cancer. It spread to my chest.
THE COURT: I understand. Any objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
THE COURT: Good luck to you, sir, okay?
THE COURT: And, then, yes, sir. Could you turn your number around? I just can't see your number.
JUROR NUMBER 54: Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: The microphone's on. The number, there we go. 54. Okay . Thank you.
THE COURT: Can I come?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. You just hand the microphone to the deputy.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I have two reasons. One, I know the employer paid for jury duty, but we have a project that has been started -- already started through end of this year, and I'm responsible for human resources, and I'm the only one. I don't have any delegation.
THE COURT: I understand.
THE COURT: That's why I'm (indiscernible).
THE COURT: The second reason, 23rd, 22nd April, so we have already vacation planned with my Boy Scouts.
THE COURT: With the Boy Scouts, you're going?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: For that one, you can have a seat in the back. All right.
THE COURT: Jamie, do you want me to go ahead and send those people back.to the jury assembly room?
THE COURT: All right. So I think that takes care of the first question. So all the people in the back that were struck from the jury panel need to go back to the jury assembly room for further assignment, okay? So you're excused from this courtroom, but just go back to the jury assembly room because there's other trials going on.
THE COURT: All right. Did you want to fill up the jury panel with 1 to 21 now? Let's go ahead and -- let's just do it in the order that we lost them.
THE COURT: What I'm going to do now is just fill the jury panel of 1 to 21 back up before we go to the next question.
COURT BAILIFF: Juror number 22, please come forward.
THE COURT: So Juror 22 will be in number 1 spot.
COURT BAILIFF: Juror Number 23, please come forward.
THE COURT: Yes, sir, just come forward. All right. number -- for the record, number 23 will be in the number 5 spot.
COURT BAILIFF: Juror number 25.
THE COURT: And for the record, Juror Number 25 will be in the number 8 spot.
COURT BAILIFF: Number 26.
THE COURT: Juror number 26 will be in the 9 spot.
COURT BAILIFF: Number 2,7.
THE COURT: Number 27 will be in the 13th spot.
COURT BAILIFF: Juror number 28.
THE COURT: And Juror Number 28 will be in the 17th spot. That's our panel of 21.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Now, that was the first question, all right? Now, second question I'm going to ask you -- and this is where some of the shuffling is going to happen, okay? So again, bear with me. All right. So the court needs to determine whether you were familiar with the case based on what you may have read, seen, or heard about the case in the past. So then if you have read something, we're going to ask you whether it affects your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case.
THE COURT: So before I ask this question, I'll give you some information about this case. So the plaintiff, John C. Depp I, also known as Johnny Depp, is suing Amber Heard, his former wife, for defamation related to an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post back in 2018. Ms. Heard is suing Mr. Depp for defamation based on statements published in various news sources.
THE COURT: Okay. So I will -now turn to my first question, and what I'd ask you to do is just raise your hand if your answer is yes. Okay? So other than the very limited information I provided to. you about this case, do any of you know anything about this case? Now, not the parties in general. For example, you may have seen the parties' movies or other projects, but I am only concerned with information about this particular case.
THE COURT: By that, I mean have you acquired any information about this particular case from newspapers; television; radio; Internet; blogs; social networking sites like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or Twitter; a Courthouse News article; or from any other source, including from speaking to friends, family, co-workers, or anyone else?
THE COURT: So just because you have does not necessarily mean you don't qualify to sit on this case. It just means we need to find out what you know and if you can still be a fair and impartial juror. So if you could just raise your hand if you heard information about this case, and I'll just write your numbers down. Okay. So we'll start over here. We've got Juror Number 6, 7, 26, and 10, 27, and 14. And actually if I can have you guys stand up in the back, I'm sorry, I just have.trouble seeing the hands from here. Okay. So we've got -- when I say your number, you can sit down.
THE COURT: 28, 19, 36, 34, 50, and 47 and 56.
THE COURT: All right. Did I catch everybody? All right. So what we're going to do now is we're going to ask those questions individually. So I'm going to have everybody go back to the jury assembly room All :right. And so we're going to speak to the people that raised their hands individually outside the presence of all the other jurors. Now, before I do that, though -- did I miss somebody? No. Okay. So before I do that, I have an important instruction for you -- all of you because now you're -- could be potentially the jurors in this case, so this is your first instruction.
THE COURT: So until and unless you have been O excused from further involvement in this case, I'm going to instruct you as follows, all right? You are not to read anything about this case from here on out. Okay? So when you go back to the jury assembly room, you cannot read about -- anything about this case. You are not to watch anything about this case. You are not to listen to anything about this case. This applies to television, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, and any online sites.
THE COURT: Further, you are not to read, watch, or listen to anything about this case on any social networking site, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or similar sites. In addition, you must not communicate with anybody about the case, whether in person, over the phone, by email, text, or instant messaging, or by any other electronic or nonelectronic devices. This means when you go back to the jury assembly room, don't start texting people about this case. All right? I want to make sure you understand that. This includes your friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, and also strangers.
THE COURT: I also instruct you that you cannot do any research or make inquiries about this case, whether online or by any other means. For example, you cannot look up any information on the Internet that is related to this case or related to the persons involved in this case, nor may you consult dictionaries or other reference materials. What you learn about this case is limited to what you learn in the four walls of this courtroom when proceedings are underway.
THE COURT: You also may not communicate about this case or the persons involved in this case with your fellow jurors or potential jurors until you have been authorized to engage in deliberations. If at any time you inadvertently see, hear, or read anything about this case or the persons involved in the case or someone says something about the case to you, you are to promptly advise a deputy sheriff who will bring it to my attention to decide how to proceed. You must not share any communication or information you acquire with any fellow juror or potential juror.
THE COURT: During the course of these proceedings, you may find yourself in the elevator, the restroom, the hallway, or the cafeteria with individuals associated with this case. The attorneys and litigants know that they cannot talk to you. They are not being unfriendly; rather, they are prohibited from talking to you. As to others, if someone speaks to you about the case, remove yourself from that encounter and report it to one of the deputy sheriffs.
THE COURT: Now, many of you have automatic notifications on your cell phones, iPads, or computers, in other words, notifications that pop up or show up as a banner on your cell phone. Some of these automatic notifications may contain information about this case; therefore, in order to ensure that you do not inadvertently become aware of information about the case by seeing a pop-up or a banner, you must disable any automatic notifications from news sites or social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, or similar sites.
THE COURT: These instructions apply to you immediately and will continue to apply to you until such time as your involvement in this case is over and you have been excused. Okay? So therefore, at this time, I would ask all the jurors to follow the sheriffs back to the jury assembly room, and we'll be with you as soon as we can.
THE COURT: And if Juror number 6 would like to stay, you're up first. Juror number 6. Okay . You stay right there. Everybody else can go.
THE COURT: Okay. Juror Number 6. All right. Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. Can you tell us what you've heard about this case, this particular case, what you know about this case?
THE COURT: Hi, Your Honor. Yes. I just heard about it through, like, Instagram or social media platforms.
THE COURT: Okay. And what exactly did you hear? Or just in general, what do you know about the case?
THE COURT: Just in general, that there is some domestic violence going on, but I haven't really read much into the details, just the headlines.
THE COURT: Just the headlines. Do you know anything else about the case?
THE COURT: Aside from the actors, no.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: Do the attorneys have any.questions of this juror?
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you say --
THE COURT: Microphone.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll do this.
THE COURT: That's fine. I don't care which microphone.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you say that you know some domestic violence is going on, what is your understanding of that domestic violence?
MS. BREDEHOFT: From what I've read, O that it is to Ms. Amber Heard. That's all I know.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Vasquez, do you have any questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, first of all, for your honesty. Based on what you've read, do you believe you've formed opinions that may make you partial as a juror to serve on this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: Like I said before, I haven't really read much into it, just because I tend not to read a lot into social media or the press in regards to that sort of stuff. But I just know of it.
THE COURT: So I guess the question is p can you put that aside and still just base your information on being a juror on the information you hear within this courtroom and still be a fair and impartial juror?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you believe that domestic violence has occurred against Ms. Heard
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you developed any opinion about whether that has occurred?
MS. VASQUEZ: I can't personally say that I have.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's fine.
THE COURT: All right, ma'am, you can go to the jury assembly room, and if we could get Juror Number 7.
THE COURT: Does anybody have objection to 6? Is there any objection on 6?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, we.have an objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: That she's already formed an opinion that the allegation occurred.
THE COURT: She said she hadn't formed an opinion.
MS. VASQUEZ: Well, she said that domestic violence had occurred in the relationship based on reading -- I believe her exact statement was -- she hadn't strong-- formed a strong opinion based on what she had read, domestic violence had occurred against Ms. Heard.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Then she said -- Ms. Vasquez followed up and asked her if she had formed any opinion, and she clarified and said no, she thought she hadn't.
THE COURT: All right. And she said she could put it aside and be fair and impartial, so I'm going to overrule the objection.
THE COURT: All right. Number 7. All right. Yes, ma'am. What we just need to know is what you've heard about this case particularly.
THE COURT: That they're -- they're not seeing each other, but they're saying things that they're -- I'm sorry.
THE COURT: No, sure. Take your time.
THE COURT: They're accusing each other of doing something.
THE COURT: Okay. And do you know what that something is that they're accusing, or no?
THE COURT: Yeah, I think it was lying, lying.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know anything else in particular? Or is this ...
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Where have you heard this?
THE COURT: Oh, that was on television.
THE COURT: Just on television? Just on the news?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
MS. BREDEHOFT: As a result of what you have read or heard on television, have you formed any opinions?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And what are those opinions, ma'am?
THE COURT: That somebody's telling the truth and someone's lying.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you made a determination of -- have you decided already who's telling the truth and who's lying?
THE COURT: You can be honest. It's fine. You can be honest.
THE COURT: No, not really. Because I don't know all the -- I don't know all the details. I don't know -- I don't know the actual -- the evidence. I don't know that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you be able to, with an open mind, listen to the evidence in this case and make a fair and impartial decision?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll try to.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe you can?
MS. BREDEHOFT: (indiscernible.)
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have no further follow-up. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: First of all, thank you. I know this is difficult. So I just need to understand. Do you have a general apprehension -- have you formed a general apprehension or thinking about this case, in particular, my client, Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: And would you be willing to share with us, generally speaking, what that opinion or thinking is?
THE COURT: Ma'am, if you'd rather approach the bench, we can do that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, that's fine.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's fine.
JUROR NUMBER 7: Because what I heard and what I saw on the news, that it's --
THE COURT: You just don't think you can block it out.
THE COURT: I can't. Yeah, that's right. I have a certain -- yeah, I have -- I do have an opinion about something.
THE COURT: Understood, understood. All right. That's fine, ma'am. We're going to O excuse you from this jury panel. All right? Have a good day. Thank you for your honesty. I appreciate it.
THE COURT: All right. So 7 is removed from the jury panel. If you can, get juror 26.
THE COURT: All right. Yes, sir, so what information have you heard about this case?
THE COURT: I've heard very little, but some information about, I think, domestic abuse and pictures and stuff like that.
THE COURT: Okay. Can you be a little more specific? Or is that all you remember?
THE COURT: I saw something about Photoshop, but not like I found information on this. I didn't even know this was going on today.
THE COURT: Well, here you are. Where did you hear this information?
THE COURT: I heard it briefly, very briefly, on the news and then amongst people, plus I was in the building earlier.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Yes, ma'am
MS. VASQUEZ: First of all, thank you. Thank you so much for being here, and thank you for your honesty.
MS. VASQUEZ: What was the source of the news that you read or heard about?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't recall exactly. It could have been Facebook. It could have been, you know, just flipping through channels. I don't normally focus on stuff like that, so ...
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you remember the first time or the last time that you saw something related to this case?
JUROR NUMBER 26: As far as seeing, weeks, I don't know, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Weeks from today--
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah. I didn't even think about it until, you know, earlier, and then I was like I think I did hear something about that.
MS. VASQUEZ: And then if you don't mind me asking, what did you hear today in the courtroom?
MS. VASQUEZ: Before we got our badges, they just -- they mentioned the Photoshop thing and stuff like that. I hadn't heard all that before.
MS. VASQUEZ: What impressions, if any, have you formed of Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: I just -- I try to be pretty fair and honest. I don't think, like, I have any, you know, bias either direction.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you think, sitting here today, if we produced evidence to you that you can be a fair and impartial juror?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Sir, when you say that there was Photoshop what was said specifically about Photoshop?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Someone had mentioned, like, Photo shopping of bruises or something like that. That was all it was. It was the only quick thing I overheard.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this was in the jury room--
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, no. This was when we were in line before we got badges and everything, before we were briefed and orientated.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Were the other people that were in the line, are they people that are now on thus jury panel?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't-- I'm not sure. They would have been near me, I think, so I don't think so. Yeah. The only reason it came up is I guess someone saw a sign and like, "Oh, maybe" this is it, and that's where it came up.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And just to the best of your ability, can you tell me what was said, you know, how it came to be, and then what was said that led up to saying Photoshopping of the bruises?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So someone mentioned the sign. I think it was like, "Free Johnny," or something like that, and I was like -- and then my boss also texted me, "You know there's a case going on today?" I didn't know anything about it and it came up. And they're like -- you know, I wasn't talking directly with them. I just overheard conversation, but they were like, "Oh, yeah. There was something about, like, abuse and bruises and something about Photoshop." I don't even know which direction it was in. I just heard it briefly. I just wanted to be honest.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And the sign "Free Johnny," was that someone holding the sign outside the courtroom?
JUROR NUMBER 26: I'm not -- I mean, it sounded like it was across the street, but I didn't see it myself, so...
MS. BREDEHOFT: Based on what was said about the bruises and the abuse and the Photoshop, have you formed any type of opinions?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. _Like I said, I don't really know all the background, so I don't believe so.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Do attorneys want to approach? Maybe we just do it this way so we can keep everything moving.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have two problems here. There's the fact that there are signs outside saying "Free Johnny."
THE COURT: I don't know what he's talking about.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And the second is --
THE COURT: He said it's on the sidewalk across from the courthouse. There's nothing I can do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So and the other -- the second is that the jurors were discussing Photoshop.
THE COURT: Yeah. I don't know what he's talking about. We can discuss that too. And that's something we can -- if you want to add that to voir dire, I have no objection to that. But I think he's fine right now.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. I will do that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just while we're up here, I object to Ms. Vasquez saying, "Thank you for your service. Thank you for your honesty." I don't think that's appropriate.
THE COURT: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, sir, you're still in the jury panel, so if you could just have a seat back in the jury assembly room, and we'll be calling you back shortly, okay.
THE COURT: All right. Number 10 is next.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. We just wanted to know what information you have heard, okay?
THE COURT: Okay. Some general stuff on the news.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I know a little bit about some of the litigation that's been taking place, but general information.
THE COURT: Do you know any specifics that you heard?
THE COURT: To specifics, no.
THE COURT: Nothing specific at all?
THE COURT: Not that I can recall, no.
THE COURT: Okay. What news did you see this case on?
THE COURT: Probably on Internet stuff.
THE COURT: Just Internet on social . media?
THE COURT: I don't do social
THE COURT: You don't do social media. Okay. So just something on the Internet, on a news site, website?
THE COURT: Google News:
THE COURT: Google News. Okay. On Google news. How long ago did you see this information?
THE COURT: I've seen it IO periodically over the course of all the stuff going on.
THE COURT: When's the last time when you recall?
THE COURT: It's been a couple weeks, probably.
THE COURT: Couple weeks ago, okay. Does anybody have any questions, follow-up questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Very briefly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: First of all, thank you very much and good morning. Anything that you've read specifically that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror on this case? Anything that you've read specifically that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror on this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Hello.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Hi.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you read any of these, did you form any opinions based on what you were reading?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, could you be completely open-minded, fair, and impartial in reviewing the evidence and making a decision?
MS. BREDEHOFT: JUROR NUMBER IO: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ,sir. You can have a seat back in the jury assembly room, and we'll be right back with you.
THE COURT: All right. Number 27.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Good morning.
THE COURT: So we'd just like to know what information have you heard about this case.
THE COURT: Yeah. So I don't know too much to be honest.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
THE COURT: I also don't want to waste everyone's time. But I heard my wife talking about Johnny Depp. I don't really know the details of anything. But I just heard that defamations are hard to win. That's all I heard. I really don't even know what it's about. I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows.
THE COURT: Sure. I appreciate it. So you don't know any particulars at all?
THE COURT: Yeah. I -- I honestly already forgot the name of the other party.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I don't know really too much of the details of the people or the case at all.
THE COURT: So this was just a conversation with year wife?
THE COURT: No. I wasn't really part of the conversation. We were at a wedding with other people. I was kind of there. I just remember hearing "Johnny Depp," because -- hearing that name before.
THE COURT: Okay. And how long ago was the wedding?
THE COURT: It was this weekend.
THE COURT: This past weekend? Okay.
THE COURT: Anybody have any questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Just very brief.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning.
MS. VASQUEZ: And thank you very much for being here. Do you recall whether your wife had any opinions whether Mr. Depp could prevail in this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't really remember the conversation, but I know that she is a fan. But I don't really know anything about the case, like I said.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are you a fan of Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: Not particularly. I've seen some of his work, but I don't know too much about him or anything like that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you formed any opinions that you think --
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't --
MS. VASQUEZ: Would cause you to be -- I'm sorry -- would cause it to be difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror on this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. Because I don't really know anything about his personal life personally. I do think he's a good actor. That's pretty much all I know.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh; good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you think, based on the fact that your wife is a fan of Johnny Depp, that that would in any way impact you on being able to listen to the evidence and make a determination -- I think it was your words -- of what he may be in his personal life versus as an actor?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Personally, I feel that I'm a pretty -- I'm pretty good at separating my own personal opinions or my wife's personal opinions from decisions, but I can see how, you know, that might play a factor. But I personally. don't think it will.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you say you can see how it might play a factor, that it might influence you subconsciously, are you thinking?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, potentially if she brings up something, I mean, I don't have -- I mean, I don't think I'm allowed to tell her anything about the case.
THE COURT: The court will instruct you that you won't be able to discuss the case with anybody.
THE COURT: Right. If I don't tell her I'm part of this case, if she brings up something in conversation with someone else while I'm nearby, I don't want it to affect my decisions.
THE COURT: Well, you can instruct her. that she can't discuss it with you.
THE COURT: Oh. Oh, I gotcha. I can tell her that?
THE COURT: Yes. Absolutely.
THE COURT: Gotcha.
MS. BREDEHOFT: If it does come up and it is said in your presence like it happened at the wedding, do you think that might have any impact?
JUROR NUMBER 27: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach?
THE COURT: Any objection to 27?
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I do, Your Honor. I think hesitancy when he said he couldn't (indiscernible), I think to me I think he's trying to be very candid, and I think he's saying that could be an influence because his wife is a fan and she can't be told (indiscernible).
THE COURT: I think now that he knows that he can tell her he's on this trial and he can't -- that he can't speak of it, I think it'll be fine. I think he was afraid that he would overhear something. I think we corrected that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Sir, you're still on the panel, so if you have a seat in the jury assembly room, we'll be calling you back in a moment, okay?
THE COURT: Number 14.
THE COURT: All right. Number 14. Yes, ma'am, what have you heard about this case?
THE COURT: I haven't heard a whole lot.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: But I had to raise my hand. I advised my boss that I had to come in for jury duty. She said, "Oh, my god. You are there" j y y y g for the All right. What exactly did they say? We just need to know.
THE COURT: That it was the Depp/Heard case and that Mr. Depp was suing his ex-wife for -- I think it was $50 million for defamation of character, and that it -- probably asked, "Why would the trial be here inside Fairfax County? The servers reside here, and it was a Washington Post op-ed." Said that there may be some celebrities witnesses, but like I said, it wasn't, but I did hear something.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Have you heard anything on -- other than that conversation, those conversations, have you heard anything else online or the news or any other source?
THE COURT: No. I don't -- I don't watch the news anymore. 22.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Follow-up questions.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning and thank you very much for being here. Have you formed any opinions that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror based on what you've heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Well, thank you very much then.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When your co-workers were talking about it, did any of them express any type of opinions about what the defamation was about, who might be right, who might be telling the truth, anything along that line?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. It was just more of an excitement about a Hollywood trial-type attitude and all this and "You might get on this." You know, it was just kind of that I think they communicated that there was a lot of back-and-forth and that it was a volatile I relationship, I -- but they didn't go into detail. And I knew enough about the law that I said, "La, la, la, la, la," and walked away.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well done. So do you think that you would be able to listen.with an open mind to any evidence that's presented and make a determination on what's -- in this Fairfax courthouse --
JUROR NUMBER 14: Yes, ma'am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Not Hollywood?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Do the attorneys want to come forward?
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You're still on the jury panel, so if you could have a seat in the jury assembly room, we'll call you back in a moment.
THE COURT: Number 28.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. We just want to make sure we know what information you might know about this case, okay? So if you could, let us know what you know.
THE COURT: I just seen a lot of stuff in the press, like pictures, articles, stuff like that.
THE COURT: Okay. What type of pictures, articles do you recall seeing?
THE COURT: Just pictures of Ms. Heard, and I've just read a lot of stories about it.
THE COURT: Okay. And what have you read in the stories?
THE COURT: I think it was pictures of her, like, face.
THE COURT: Okay. And what exactly have you heard? We need to know exactly what you know.
THE COURT: Just that she been hit in the face, like I saw pictures, allegedly.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know anything else about this case?
THE COURT: I don't think -- I guess there was -- sorry. I don't know how much I can say.
THE COURT: I'll let you know.
THE COURT: Just I guess that that was not real; it was just for a picture.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: And that's pretty much it, just that. And then I did know there was, like, ongoing things between them, but I haven't followed it in a while, so it's probably dated information.
THE COURT: Okay. How long ago do you think was the last thing you read about this case?
JUROR NUMBER 28: Yeah.
THE COURT: How long ago?
THE COURT: Oh. I would say, like, maybe a year or two.
THE COURT: A year or two ago?.
JUROR NUMBER 28: Yeah;
THE COURT: All right. Follow-up questions.
MS. VASQUEZ: First of all, good morning and thank you very much for being here. Please, we want you to speak candidly and openly. I know it can be nerve-racking, but we very much appreciate that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you recall -- I know you said it's been a bit since you saw something. Do you recall the source of where you saw those pictures or read something about this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. I think it was just the press, seen probably, like, an article to go online. But, no, I don't remember the specific outlet.
MS. VASQUEZ: And you did say the last time you saw something was one or two years ago?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes. That was what I spoke about, that's the last I heard. I didn't even know that something was going on today.
MS. VASQUEZ: And when you saw -- you said you saw pictures, I believe, of Ms. Heard's face, did you see that with what appeared to be injuries on her face?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Did you form any opinions about, one way or another, whether those were in fact injuries or something else?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. Just the information that came out later that suggested that maybe those weren't real. But no, I didn't form an opinion either way. That was just the last piece of information that I saw about it.
MS. VASQUEZ: And when you say that you saw something, that maybe those pictures or injuries on those pictures weren't real, what was the source of that?
MS. VASQUEZ: I think it was just something in the press. I don't even remember. It didn't really register.
MS. VASQUEZ: All right. Is there anything that you've read or heard -- I understand it's been a number of years -- that would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial in this jury?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't think so.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you formed any opinion about Mr. Depp or Ms. Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. -
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: ,Okay. Yes, ma'am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you. So you recall seeing pictures of bruises, and then you recall sometime later somebody saying, "Oh, those weren't real" something to that effect?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. When you saw the pictures of the bruises, did you form any opinion then?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, not really.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. When you heard I later or when you read later that somebody was. saying those aren't real did you form an opinion then?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't think I formed a real opinion. I think it was just more of a passing like, "Oh, I hope that's not true," you know. But no, it was really more of just passing information, no opinion formed either way.
MS. BREDEHOFT: This case will involve photos, and so will you be able to look at the photos and then listen with an open mind to the testimony relating to those photos and those -- what was depicted in them with an open mind and make a decision on what you see or hear in this next six weeks?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MS. VASQUEZ: May I approach? First of all, I don't have an objection, Your Honor, but I do have an objection to Ms. Bredehoft referring to them as bruises.
THE COURT: That is :fine.
MS. VASQUEZ: I would just prefer that it be "an injury of some kind depicted."
THE COURT: That's good. I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody have an objection to her? She says she can be fair and impartial.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. You're still on the jury panel, ma'am If you could have a seat in the jury assembly room, we'll get back to you, hopefully, in a few minutes, okay.
THE COURT: So, number 19.
THE COURT: Good morning, ma'am
THE COURT: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. So what we need to know is just what information you have heard about this case.
THE COURT: I read the article in the Washington Post this morning.
THE COURT: Okay. So you saw the article this morning in the Washington Post?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: Other than that article, have you read anything else about this case or heard anything about this case?
THE COURT: No, I've not.
THE COURT: No. Just the Post article this morning?
JUROR NUMBER 19: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning and thanks very much for being here. We very much appreciate it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Admittedly I haven't read the article in the Washington Post. Do you mind telling me a little bit about what you read and what you understood from that article?
MS. VASQUEZ: Basically it described why the trial was here in Fairfax County, that the op-ed was written in the Washington Post, that the defendant is looking to use something that says it was a general thing about domestic abuse and not something particular to the individual. That's kind of what I took from it, and then it's obviously about money at the end of the day, so...
MS. VASQUEZ: And based on what you've read, did you form any opinions about either of the parties?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't think so. I,
MS. VASQUEZ: You know, I don't think I did. I just kind of . read it to understand what was happening, so ...
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Did you have a particular reason that you decided to read that article? Did something draw you to it? Did you know you were serving as a juror?
MS. VASQUEZ: I saw a notification yesterday, I guess, about it, you know, being in Fairfax. I said "Oh, Fairfax is where I live," so ...
MS. VASQUEZ: Anything that you read there that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't think so.
MS. VASQUEZ: I just noticed a bit of . hesitation. Is there anything that you think that we need to know? No?
MS. VASQUEZ: Not anything I -- I read the article, I guess. It comes down to money, so that's my opinion on it. I guess that's the one thing I gleaned from it.
MS. VASQUEZ: And when you say it comes down to money
MS. VASQUEZ: Both parties have lost financially because of this situation.
MS. VASQUEZ: And do you know what the situation is?
MS. VASQUEZ: Well, basically one is saying bad things about the other, and it's counter backwards, so, you know, going against each other, so -- and because of those things they O said, there were lost opportunities for revenue and future opportunities as well.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much. Very much appreciate it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sure thing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So when you say that it's about money and they've lost different opportunities and at the end of the day it's about money, would that in any way influence you on being conservative, if you will, in awarding money if you found through the evidence that one of them was entitled to be compensated?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you rephrase that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. I did a terrible job on that. Thank you. Let me try that again.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you be able to have an open mind and hear the evidence in this case and make a determination about whether either of the parties caused the other harm and be able to fairly compensate them?
MS. BREDEHOFT: That, I don't know. I guess the amount of money that's talked is something that's not-- I've never'personally experienced so, therefore, I don't know.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's Hollywood, right?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Sure.
THE COURT: I guess my question would just be can you put what you've read in the Post aside, and obviously not read anything else, and base your opinion of this case on the evidence that you hear within the courtroom?
THE COURT: Certainly I can try, yes.
THE COURT: You can try?
JUROR NUMBER 19: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am Hold on. You can stay right there for a second.
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't have an objection, Your Honor.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I do. I think she's very -- I feel there's a lot of hesitancy with tins juror.
THE COURT: There does appear to be a little, I think so, about it, but I think that's something -- I'll let her stay on right now, but I think something we can flesh out on voir dire with other questions that we have.
MS. VASQUEZ: I agree.
THE COURT: Ma'am, you're still part of the panel. You can have a seat, and we'll call you back in a few minutes, okay.
THE COURT: Certainly.
THE COURT: Back in the jury assembly room Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. So what we just need to know is what you know .about this case, what you've heard about tins case, okay?
THE COURT: I've heard very little.
THE COURT: Okay. What have you heard?
THE COURT: Actually, I looked it up today just when I heard it was here in Fairfax County. I wasn't sure why, you know, it would be . here. That's about all I know.
THE COURT: Okay. So what did you look up? When you say you looked up, what did you look up?
THE COURT: I didn'tread it. I just looked it up, Googled it, you know, Johnny Depp, and it came up, you know, Fairfax County.
THE COURT: Okay. And you did not read the article?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Or click on the article?
JUROR NUMBER 36: No, disinterested. Now I'm interested.
THE COURT: Okay. So you didn't read anything further than that?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Do you have any other information about this case at all?
THE COURT: No. No.
THE COURT: All right. Any questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Very briefly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning and thanks very much for being here this morning.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sure.
MS. VASQUEZ: I just want to be sure you feel that you can be a fair and impartial juror on this case based on what you looked at
JUROR NUMBER 36: Well, I didn't really -- like I said, I didn't open it up. Just -- I don't know, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is that yes, you feel you can be fair and impartial (indiscernible) for the evidence in this case?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
JUROR NUMBER 36: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So when you said you looked it up, what did you -- do you remember what your search terms were?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Just his name.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And so when you heard it, you heard Johnny Depp was going to be here?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Yeah, uh-huh.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Okay. Did you have any thoughts about Amber Heard on that?
JUROR NUMBER 36: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you remember what the headline was?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Oh, just that it was going to be here at Fairfax County Courthouse.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So do you even know what the claims are?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Not other than what you -- from this morning --
MS. BREDEHOFT: The judge said?
JUROR NUMBER 36: Right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So is. there anything of what you have seen or your curiosity or anything else that would cause you not to have an open mind and be able to listen to the evidence in this case and make a decision?
JUROR NUMBER 36: I don't think so.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Great. Thank
THE COURT: All right. Any objections?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: Sir, you can have a seat in the jury assembly room, and we'll get back to you in a moment.
THE COURT: All right. Number 34.
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
JUROR NUMBER 34: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. So we just want to know what you have heard about this case.
JUROR NUMBER 34: So when I found out that I was going to be here today, I saw that there was a famous trial and there was a link to the Washington Post article, and so I read that.
THE COURT: All right. You read the Post article from yesterday or the day before?
JUROR NUMBER 34: No. The Post article that Ms. Heard wrote.
THE COURT: You actually read the op-ed?
JUROR NUMBER 34: Yes.
THE COURT: From 2018?
JUROR NUMBER 34: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And have you read anything else?
JUROR NUMBER 34: No.
THE COURT: That's all you read?
JUROR NUMBER 34: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: Hi. Good morning. Thank you very much for being here today.
JUROR NUMBER 34: Good morning.
MS. VASQUEZ: You said that-- did you read Ms. Heard's op-ed today, this morning?
JUROR NUMBER 34: Yesterday.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And did you form any opinions after reading the op-ed?
JUROR NUMBER 34: I mean, I thought it was a very well-written opinion page. I don't know that I had any context to form an opinion beyond that.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you say it was a very well-written opinion piece, did anything jump out at you about her allegations against my client, Mr. Depp?
JUROR NUMBER 34: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Did you form any opinions T DEPOS I as to whether Ms. Heard was telling the truth?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't think so. I just read it as being an opinion about the ability of women to write about what had happened to them
THE COURT: And when you say "women's right to talk about what's happened to them," is that based on an opinion that Ms. Heard suffered domestic abuse at the hands of Mr. Depp?
THE COURT: I didn't read that IO into it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you formed any opinions about Mr. Depp based on reading Ms. Heard's op-ed?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you formed any opinions about Ms. Heard after reading the op-ed?
MS. VASQUEZ: Just about her ability to write.
MS. VASQUEZ: And what is your opinion about her ability to write?
MS. VASQUEZ: Well, I just-- it was a very well-written opinion piece.
MS. VASQUEZ: Did you form any impressions about Mr. Depp after reading the op-ed?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you think that, based on reading the op-ed, it would be difficult for you to be fair and impartial?
JUROR NUMBER 34: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning. So IO when -- after you read the op-ed, did you have any understanding of what the claims were in this case?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, I did not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. So is there anything about reading the op-ed or anything else you might have seen or heard; including this morning, that cause you in any way not to have an open mind and to listen to the evidence and make a determination?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, I don't believe so.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sorry. Just one more I quick question for you. Based on reading the op-ed that Ms. Heard wrote, did you form an opinion that Mr. Depp should not be bringing a defamation case in light of that op-ed?
MS. VASQUEZ: I -- no, I don't think so.
MS. VASQUEZ: You say you don't think so. What do you mean exactly? Could you explain?
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm not sure that I IO evaluated it in that much depth. I mean, I just kind of read through it. I didn't really, you know, think about, in depth, what the legal issues were regarding it.
MS. VASQUEZ: You mentioned a number of times opinion piece. Do you believe that someone should be entitled to bring a defamation case because someone wrote an opinion piece?
MS. VASQUEZ: Well, I mean, I guess a defamation is based on what somebody has said about you. So depending on what the content is, I would say sure, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach?
MS. VASQUEZ: I mean, I have some objections to the fact that he's read the piece.
THE COURT: That's going to be part of the instruction, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: But he actually read it. And obviously we'll contend that (indiscernible) who actually drafted it.
THE COURT: He doesn't know what he doesn't know. I don't think -- I mean the op-ed was -- that's what the basis of it is. That is coming into evidence. At this point I don't think there's any issue, and again, you can parse it out with voir dire . But I think it's okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay . Thank you.
THE COURT: Sir, you're still on the jury panel. But if you could, have a seat back in the jury assembly room, okay, we'll get back to you, okay? Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Number 50.
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
JUROR NUMBER 50: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. What we need to know, sir, is just what you have heard about this case. That's all.
THE COURT: Prior to, basically what you said at the bench. When I came in this morning, I saw the cameras out front, and when I was sitting in the jury waiting room I texted my wife that, you know, there were cameras there and, you know, something big must be going on.
THE COURT: She texted me back said, "Oh, there's the Depp trial." I remember I had heard something about it. I don't pay attention to the entertainment news or anything like that. And so we kind of texted back and forth, and my wife had a definite opinion; I don't. But I have a text record that we discussed this, you know, two hours ago. And I just want to be --
THE COURT: So what did your wife say?
THE COURT: She takes Mr. Depp's side.
THE COURT: Can you be specific? Can you pull out your phone?
JUROR NUMBER 50: Absolutely. I'll read it to you.
THE COURT: I appreciate it.
THE COURT: Do you want me to do the whole conversation? It's not a whole lot.
THE COURT: Sure.
THE COURT: Okay. So I texted her when I got here this morning. I said, "Scads of TV crews and looked like protesters out in front of the courthouse."
THE COURT: She said, "Jeez, I hope they're not going to need you for weeks." She texted me back. She said, "Apparently Johnny Depp is there, but I don't know if that's related."
THE COURT: I said, "May be here for him . Doubt it's anything to do with a new case."
THE COURT: She asked me, "You couldn't tell what they were protesting?"
THE COURT: I said, "No. Group of young girls with signs, maybe Depp fans, not protesters." I said, "It's jury selection for the Depp trial today, aye, y yi." I said, "Hell, I think that would At that point I looked up a local news story, Fairfax Patch, and they basically had what you said. They did mention some potential witnesses, and I mentioned to my wife that I read that Elon Musk might be testifying, but no idea why.
THE COURT: And she said, "Wait. Are you there for Depp?"
THE COURT: And I said, "Could be. Don't know. Looks like around a hundred people here. Probably pull 40 or 50, and the lawyers will be down. 20 percent chance I might be here."
THE COURT: My wife then says, "Amber is psychotic. Johnny set up. No one ever looks at spousal abuse when the man is victim Tell them your wife abuses you. LOL." And -- and then she says, "Okay. This is a defamation lawsuit."
THE COURT: I answered, "Yes. 50 million; what I read in the article. Musk is supposed to testify. I remember reading about it, don't remember any details. She said, "I can't believe it. Depp is 58 years old. He's your peer.
THE COURT: I said, "They've got a lot of cases going on. No idea where I'll end up." And that was it.
THE COURT: All right. And you said you had seen a Patch -- you linked to a Patch article. Do you remember what that article said?
THE COURT: I can pull that up.
THE COURT: No. We don't need to pull it up. I just want to know what you remember from it.
THE COURT: Just that they mentioned a monetary figure. I think it was 48,000, I rounded it off to -- or 48 million, I rounded it off to, you know, 50 when I talked to my wife. And they mentioned potential witnesses, and Musk just popped in my mind because he'd been in the news all the time.
THE COURT: All right. So it sounds like your wife has, like you said, strong opinions.
JUROR NUMBER 50: She has strong opinions, yeah.
THE COURT: All right But if you're on this case, I mean, obviously you have conversation with your wife, but you couldn't have any conversations about this case.
THE COURT: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you think that's something she can abide to?
THE COURT: I think so. She might ask I wouldn't discuss it with her.
THE COURT: Okay. Questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning and thank you. Thank you for being here.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: We all appreciate it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you think that you can follow the court's instructions to not talk about this case with your wife or anyone else should you serve as juror?
JUROR NUMBER 50: Sure.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you fanned any opinions based on what your wife said to you this morning about this case?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. My wife is more of a headline reader. I'm more of an article reader. But, you know, her -- she's big into entertainment and things like that. She watches lots of movies; I don't. I'm kind of an outdoorsman, a hunter and fisherman, you know, so that sort of stuff, we -- we watch movies. She tells me who the actors are. I mean, I recognize very few, so ...
MS. VASQUEZ: You say you're more of an article reader. Is that fair -- is it fair to say that, then, you could be fair and impartial in listening to evidence mentioned in this case should you serve as a juror?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah. That's -- that's how I interpret the news. I don't read one article and say that's what it is. I look-- if I read something in the news and it catches my interest, I'll usually pull up three or four different articles, just to dig into it to figure out, you know, where I feel the truth lies.
MS. VASQUEZ: And your wife's opinions about the parties in this case, you feel strongly that that wouldn't affect your ability to serve and be fair and impartial; is that right?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't believe it would. I wouldn't see any reason it would.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Yes, ma'am
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So your wife said, "Amber's psychotic." Do you have any -- does your wife frequently use that strong of language to describe somebody?
MS. BREDEHOFT: She tends to exaggerate.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, yeah. You know, if there's a little bit of a chill in the house, "It's freezing in here." Temperature goes up one degree, "It's roasting in here." So, yeah. It's -- she does. She uses superlative, both positive and negative, in most of her conversation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you agree with her when she says that if a man says a woman beat him, then they never believe him?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't know that it's true or not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And when she -- O you know when she said, "Tell them that I have beat you," or something along that line, "LOL," was she -- did you get the impression she was trying to get you off, that you need to have an excuse to get off the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think she probably would think that way, yeah. I do. She's not a fan of me being on jury duty for six weeks.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Okay. And with all of those strong opinions, if you sat here for six weeks and you don't talk to her at all, do you think she's going to forgive you for not talking to her during those six weeks?
JUROR NUMBER 50: Being nosy, she probably wouldn't like it, but I think she would understand.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And if you came back at the end of that and you said, "You know what? Amber's not psychotic, and these things happened and we found this way and if it's against Mr. Depp and for Amber, do you think your wife would hold it against you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. My wife, she exaggerates, but she's very intelligent. And so when you lay things out for her, you know, it's not like trying to say it to a child, but, you know, you lay out the facts, the facts speak perfectly for themselves.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have you had to do that before where your wife just has a strong opinion of something, and you go and you look it up. You were saying, and you check it all out, and you go back and go, "Wait a second. It's the opposite," has that happened frequently with you -- with your wife?
JUROR NUMBER 50: I wouldn't say frequently, but I'm sure we've had those kind -- I can't think of any, you know, exact, you know, examples. But, yeah, I mean; we've had discussions of political matters and stuff like that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And has there ever been a time when you disagree with her and you say, "Wait, wait, wait," that she stubbornly holds it anyway or gets mad at you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, gets mad at-me all the time. But; yeah, no. I don't think we hold grudges against each other on things like that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay'. All right. Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to approach? Any objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I do have an objection on his really rather strong phraseology on that
THE COURT: I -- from his wife, and I agree with you. He seems very even keel at this time. I think he would be able to handle that with the instructions . I think he would follow the instructions of the Court dead on. So I think we'll {indiscernible), I think.
THE COURT: Sir, you're still on the panel for now. If you go back to the jury assembly room, we'll call you back here shortly, okay?
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Number 47.
THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: Hello.
THE COURT: What we need to know is just what you've heard about this case.
THE COURT: I believe that it involves domestic violence accusations. I heard there was a trial in London that resolved recently. That's the main gist of it.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, more than the gist of it, can you tell specifically what you've heard?
THE COURT: I believe the London trial was riot in favor of Mr. Depp and partially a continuation of trying to resolve it in his favor.
THE COURT: THE COURT.: Okay. A.pd where did you see this information?
THE COURT: On the Internet.
THE COURT: On the Internet. You don't remember particularly where? Was it on social media platform?
THE COURT: It was on Facebook.
THE COURT: It was on Facebook. Okay. How recently have you seen these?
THE COURT: JUROR NUMBER 4 7: Just last week.
THE COURT: Just last week. Okay. You don't remember specifically what news article from Facebook?
THE COURT: I believe it was a link from the New York 'rimes.
THE COURT: Link from the New York Times? Okay. Based on that information that you've heard, have you -- do you think that you could be fair and impartial and just decide this case within the four walls of this courtroom?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right. Questions.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. And thank you for your honesty.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you said you heard or read that the London trial was resolved recently, did you read anything else specifically about that?
MS. VASQUEZ: I didn't.
MS. VASQUEZ: And when you read that it didn't go in Mr. Depp's favor, again, did you read anything specifically about that?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR NUMBER 4 7: Just the article was mentioning that it was not a jury trial, and they preferred a jury trial.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'I'm sorry. when you say "would prefer a jury trial," who would prefer or what would be preferred about a jury trial?
MS. VASQUEZ: The article implied Mr. Depp would prefer a jury trial.
MS. VASQUEZ: And when you said that the article implied that Mr. Depp was trying to resolve the maybe negative London trial with tins lawsuit, did you form any opinions about Mr. Depp's ability to have Ins day in court here in the United States?
MS. VASQUEZ: I did not, no.
MS. VASQUEZ: Based on the fact that the article reported that the London trial didn't go in Mr. Depp's favor, did that cause you to form any opinions about Ins chances in this courtroom?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you believe that you can be fair and impartial after listening to all the evidence?
MS. VASQUEZ: I do.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I get to go too.
JUROR NUMBER 47: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Don't go anywhere yet, but I'll only ask you a couple questions.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You understood the London court I decision was not resolved in Mr. Depp's favor, but this is a continuation, I think you said.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What did you mean by that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I guess I would say that either the -- neither individual's names are completely clear, that it has cost both of them work, and they hope to resolve favorably in one or the other's favor so that their careers go on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Do you think you would be able to keep an open mind and listen to the evidence in this case and make a fair and impartial decision?
JUROR NUMBER 47: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: No objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: No objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: All right. Sir, you can have a seat back in the jury assembly room, and we'll be calling you back shortly, okay?
THE COURT: And number 56.
THE COURT: Good morning, ma'am. You can sit down.
THE COURT: So what we need to know is just what you've heard about this case.
THE COURT: Just general high-level information, just that there is dispute, obviously, between the parties. Spoken with this about my daughter. She's a 16-year-old, so of course she has opinions about this. But just broad stroke, good, bad, just not a lot of detail, to be honest.
THE COURT: Okay. Where did you see this information? Just from your 16-year-old daughter?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. That's the only source of your information?
THE COURT: Pretty much, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. So what-- can you -- just give me specifically what she said, can you tell us what she said?
THE COURT: She was going into a little bit of detail about what was going on about Ms. Heard accusing Mr. Depp of -- I don't even know the details, but I think something was thrown. It was abusive language, potentially, emotional abusive. But ultimately we didn't know what the outcome really was because we didn't have the information, the full information and how it's portrayed in the press is not necessarily what's real. So ...
THE COURT: And that's it? She didn't get any more specific than that?
JUROR NUMBER 56: No.
THE COURT: And when was this conversation?
THE COURT: A year ago, year and a half ago.
THE COURT: A year ago. And you haven't seen anything else online or any news articles or anything else on it?
JUROR NUMBER 56: Nope.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Questions?
MS. VASQUEZ: Good morning. Thank you very much for being here. You said you spoke to your daughter about a year ago about the allegations.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yep.
MS. VASQUEZ: And maybe I misunderstood. I think you said your daughter had some opinions about it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Did she express an opinion one way or the other about Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: It went both ways. IO She can see both sides, basically -- so no conclusion (indiscernible) essentially.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sounds like a smart girl.
MS. VASQUEZ: She is.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you recall what she said about -- specifically about Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't, no.
MS. VASQUEZ: And how about the same question about Ms. Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Based on what your daughter said in that conversation -- I gather it was a year ago -- do you think that it would be p difficult for you to be fair and impartial on this jury?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: And do you think you could follow the Court's instructions to not speak with your daughter should you be chosen as a juror?
MS. VASQUEZ: I could, yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Daughters can be interesting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: They can, yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And they can definitely be opinionated.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She certainly is, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, when you said, you didn't know the outcome, what do you mean? Outcome of what really happened.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Got it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And that's hard to know, right?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And, in fact, that's why we have jury trials. So would you be able to just keep an open mind through this trial, notwithstanding anything you discussed with your daughter a year ago?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Of course.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you will listen to the evidence and come to a fair and impartial conclusion?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Ma'am, you're still on our jury panel, so if you could have a seat back in the jury assembly room, we'll get back to you, okay?
THE COURT: I'm just checking. From my calculations, we still have 41 on this particular jury panel; is that correct? Does everybody else have the same number, 41? Okay. So there's two ways we can go from here. We have 41. I still have 40 other jurors waiting. We can either do those same two questions with the other 40 jurors if you don't think 41 is going to be enough for our jury panel. I think those two main questions, I think 41 will be enough to get us to 11 . I can keep the other 40 in reserve, so I won't let them go today. We'll keep going until we get a jury panel.
THE COURT: But I don't think I need to bring those 40 in to go through those two questions at this point. Does everybody kind of agree with that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I would be inclined to agree with that.
THE COURT: You agree with that?
MS. VASQUEZ: We agree.
THE COURT: Oh, you agree too. Good. All right. So we'll keep them on reserve. Now, for the jury panel we have now, the 41 people we have, the next option we can do is it's noon. I can go ahead and let them have lunch until 1, and then we could come back at 1 and start our voir dire at that time so we don't have to break it up. Is that--
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think that makes sense.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that good for everybody?
MS. VASQUEZ: Right.
THE COURT: All right. So let's go ahead and do that. You can release all the jurors until 1:00, but they need to be back in the jury assembly room at 1 so we can bring them back in here. Okay? Make sure they understand my instruction about discussions and talking, okay? All right. Thank you very much. All right. So we'll take a recess until 1. Is that fine? All right. Thank you.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: Court's at 1?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Court's at 1, right? My All right. Let's continue.
THE COURT: I understand there's one juror, Juror Number 32, who now says she has a hardship. I was going to bring her in first and then we can move on from there, okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Make sure everyone is on time.
THE COURT: Would you like to approach the bench, ma'am? That's fine.
THE COURT: If I start crying. After lunch, I thought about it. I don't think that I could handle this, I am overwhelmed because I just got off of two years coming from Chicago caring for my mother, and then I had to clean her hoarder house in Dallas, and now my health is failing. I'm 68.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: And I have to buy a house because I have, like; 30 stairs up to my bedroom
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: And you know how houses are now. Yeah, so I've got to sell my house and buy another house.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: So, I don't think I could do this six weeks.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: I've still got two months left on being executer and trustee for her account with four other siblings of only one who helps me do all this. So, I don't think I can do this.
THE COURT: You've got too much on your mind going on, you wouldn't be able to focus on the trial. I understand.
THE COURT: I don't want to have a stroke because of the stress.
THE COURT: I don't think there's any objection, ma'am You're free to go, ma'am Just go back to the jury assembly room, okay?
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: So, Juror 32 is out.
THE COURT: I want to remind everybody that court starts at 1. When I say court starts at 1, court starts at 1.
THE COURT: All right. So are we ready for the jury panel to come back?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think there's one juror, Number 7 was taken off, so we are going to have to move a juror up. 29 will be placed in Number 7's spot, okay? And then we'll have our panel -- 2. Juror Number 2 would like to speak Bring Juror Number 2 in.
COURT BAILIFF: Everyone please come forward. It's the same seats you were in before.
THE COURT: Where's Number 23? Do we have a 23?
COURT BAILIFF: Number 23.
THE COURT: No 23?
COURT BAILIFF: Please sit where you were before.
THE COURT: Number 25.
COURT BAILIFF: The same place you were sitting.
THE COURT: Number 26.
THE COURT: Have a seat. Do we have everybody? 19, 15, 16, all right. 28. Okay. 18, 19, 20, 25.
THE COURT: Perfect. All right. So we did replace Number 7 with Number 29, correct?
THE COURT: You're 29, sir?
THE COURT: I am
THE COURT: All right. Number 2, do you wish to approach the bench?
THE COURT: I did.
THE COURT: Number 3. You were close.
THE COURT: All right, Number 3, approach, sir. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I called my manager and they said they're only reimbursing me for, like, up to two weeks of jury duty.
THE COURT: Who is your manager?
THE COURT: I work for a company called Navesta (phonetic); they say they can only reimburse me for two weeks.
THE COURT: We can get you a letter because that's not right. They have to reimburse you for the full time you're on jury duty.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I'll get you a letter about jury service if you need it for that, okay?
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything I can do in the event I don't get y g g reimbursed for the full six weeks?
THE COURT: We'll send the letter. I think that will resolve the issue because they have to. By law, they have to.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. So ladies and gentlemen, we got through the two big questions. We have many more other questions, but I don't think they'll be as long as .the last two, so that's why we wanted to do that ahead of time, okay?
THE COURT: Now, what we're going to do, I'm just -- our jury panel itself is the jurors that are sitting in this jury box and the jurors on the front row. Those 21 people are what we are going to direct our attention to now and ask the questions to those 21 people. If for some reason these 21 people cannot sit on the jury panel, then we'll be calling the other jurors forward to take their places. So, I would ask the other jurors, though I'm not going to ask you the questions directly at this time, I would ask you to pay attention to all the questions that are being asked, and then if you do become on the jury panel of one of these 21 people, I'll ask if you heard all the questions that have been said so far and if you have anything to add to that, okay?
THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate it.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask you a few questions first, and then the attorneys have an opportunity to ask you questions as well.
THE COURT: My first question is, if you understand English, would you raise your right hand. Make sure we get it all straight. We have everybody. Everybody understands English.
THE COURT: All right. If you can answer the next questions I have for you out loud since we have a court reporter. I appreciate it. Okay.
THE COURT: Have you lived in the County or City of Fairfax for the past six months and in the Commonwealth of Virginia for the past year?
THE COURT: Are each of you a citizen of the United States?
THE COURT: Have you ever been convicted of a felony?
THE COURT: Do you have a case currently pending in the Fairfax County Circuit Court?
THE COURT: Do you know or are related by blood or marriage to either party?
THE COURT: Do you know any of the attorneys in this case in any capacity, personal or professional, as a friend, employee, client or opposing counsel?
THE COURT: Do you have any interest in the outcome of this case, such as any personal or financial interest in the outcome?
THE COURT: Are you aware of any bias or prejudice that you might have for or against p any party in this case?
THE COURT: Does anybody have a problem hearing or seeing, that we haven't discussed already?
THE COURT: Do you know any reason, whatsoever, why you cannot give a fair and impartial trial to both parties in this matter?
THE COURT: All right. That's all the questions _that I have.
THE COURT: Ms. Vasquez, your questions.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your Honor, may I please wear ...
THE COURT: Yes. We have it for you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for being here today. You've heard a little bit about this case already this morning from Chief Judge. If you're selected as a juror, you will get to hear everything. I'm looking forward to telling you about this case. But today is the day we get to hear from you. Each and every one of you.
MS. VASQUEZ: It's our only chance to have a conversation. My job is to ask you about experiences and opinions that you hold and may be relevant to this case, and some of the experiences might help you as a juror and some of those experiences might make it hard for you to be impartial. And if that's true for you, it doesn't mean you're an unfair person. It just means that this might not be the right case for you to sit on as a juror.
MS. VASQUEZ: There are no right or wrong answers. If a question applies to you, the only thing I ask is that you, please, raise your hand and I will read off your jury numbers so I can keep track, and then I will follow up with you. If there's a question you would prefer to answer in private, just let us know and we can ask the judge if we can discuss the issue at sidebar.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, my first question for each of you today is, we've already spoken with some of you that have read or heard about this lawsuit. But let me ask a more general question. How many of you follow stories in media about celebrities? Again, by a show of hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: Juror number. Number 2, 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody else follow stories in the media about celebrities? I'll start with you, Number 2.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is there anyone here who you would say celebrity news is something you read of regularly?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: What's your primary source of celebrity news?
MS. VASQUEZ: Newspaper.
MS. VASQUEZ: Any particular newspaper?
MS. VASQUEZ: I subscribe to the Washington Post.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Any others?
MS. VASQUEZ: Juror Number 28, same questions for you. Is there anyone here you would say celebrity news is something you read on a regular basis?
MS. VASQUEZ: Can you hear me? I wouldn't say there's anything specific that comes to mind, just things that are in the mainstream media and where I see on social media.
MS. VASQUEZ: Social media. When you say "social media," do you mean -- which one?
MS. VASQUEZ: Usually Facebook
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you, have you or anyone close to you ever worked for a celebrity or someone in the entertainment industry? Again, by a show of hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: No one. No one in the entertainment industry or celebrity?
MS. VASQUEZ: How many of you read opinion or editorials either in print or online in the paper?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 11.
MS. VASQUEZ: Wall Street Journal.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Any other?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Just Wall Street Journal? Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone here on the first row? How many of you would say that most of what you read and hear about celebrities is true?
MS. VASQUEZ: Some people say that a person's personal life should be private, even if they are a celebrity. I don't think that by choosing a career in the public eye that it's fair game for celebrities' personal lives to be featured in media stories.
MS. VASQUEZ: How many of you agree that it is fair game for celebrities' lives to be featured in media stories?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 18.
MS. VASQUEZ: Somewhere in the middle. Depends on how much they put themselves out there and how much they share.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you think my client, Mr. Depp, has put himself out there?
MS. VASQUEZ: Not that I've seen, no.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: How many of you have read or heard something about my client, Johnny Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: There's a lot of hands on that one. Bear with me. Can I have everyone, please, raise their hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: Let's start with Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is there anyone here who has never -- well, okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: I mean, just seen the movies, with Heard in it.
THE COURT: We can't hear over here.
MS. VASQUEZ: There's the mic.
MS. VASQUEZ: Seeing movies, and, obviously, what small amount I shared with you earlier about things in the case, and the sidebar thing for questions to the judge
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm sorry, you want to have a sidebar with the Court?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, after.
MS. VASQUEZ: After we're done?
MS. VASQUEZ: I just want to make sure something won't disqualify me.
THE COURT: We can do that now.
JUROR NUMBER 26: Sorry about that.
THE COURT: That's all right.
THE COURT: Number 26, yes.
THE COURT: So, my wife is a former police officer, also, top secret DOD. All that stuff.
THE COURT: I mean, one of the questions was about law enforcement. That doesn't disqualify you as all.
THE COURT: And then previously, in, like, nothing on the record, but domestic-type stuff before, so I didn't know if that would disqualify me.
THE COURT: Again, they're going to ask you questions.
THE COURT: Nothing with the police involved.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, sorry, I'll ask the question again. By a show of hands, how many of you have read or heard something about my client, Johnny Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: Let's start with Number 6.
MS. VASQUEZ: Hi, just through headlines, but I don't really read into those and read press, stuff like that.
MS. VASQUEZ: So just general entertainment-type news?
MS. VASQUEZ: Correct.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next hand that was raised? Number 10. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Only thing I heard is generalities regarding marriage issues.
MS. VASQUEZ: Let's talk a little bit about that.
MS. VASQUEZ: What have you heard, generally, about Mr. Depp and his marriage issues?
MS. VASQUEZ: Just that is was contentious.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anything else?
MS. VASQUEZ: That's it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 11.
MS. VASQUEZ: Just the movie, that's it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Any particular film?
MS. VASQUEZ: The Chocolate Factory.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anything else that you've read or heard about my client?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 12
MS. VASQUEZ: Just movies, previews and credits.
THE COURT: If you can just shortcut this. If it's just on movies, you don't need to raise your hand. If it's something other than movies, you can raise your hand.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Your Honor. That's a great suggestion.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody other than movies? No? No one? Let's go to the first row. Other than movies? Yes. Just what I shared earlier.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Just the sidebar?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Yep.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody else? Great. Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is there anyone here who has never read or heard anything about Johnny Depp? By a show of hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. How many of you can't recall ever seeing a movie with Johnny Depp or think you may have only seen one?
MS. VASQUEZ: Can you repeat the question?
MS. VASQUEZ: Absolutely. Thank you, Number 22.
MS. VASQUEZ: How many of you can't recall ever seeing a movie with Johnny Depp or think you may have only seen one movie?
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you formed a negative opinion of Johnny Depp based on something you've read or heard or maybe a movie he was in? By a show of hands. Anyone? Before today, how many of you heard of the defendant, the actress, Amber Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: Could you repeat the question?
MS. VASQUEZ: Absolutely. Before today, how many of you heard of the defendant, the actor, Amber Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26, how many -- how have you heard of her?
MS. VASQUEZ: From movies. film?
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you seen her in a How many films have you seen her in?
JUROR NUMBER 26: I believe so, yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Probably more than one.
MS. VASQUEZ: Can we have the microphone?
MS. VASQUEZ: Who else has heard about the defendant, Amber Heard? Including movies or no?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, including moves. Number 10.
MS. VASQUEZ: The same thing I said before, just credits to the generalities, as far as marital issues.
MS. VASQUEZ: So you understood, from what you read or heard, that Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp were married?
MS. VASQUEZ: Correct.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you. Number 12.
MS. VASQUEZ: Again, just movies, but I can't think of the name of a single one.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you know how many you've seen?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 4.
JUROR NUMBER 4: Movies. I couldn't name any of them, just like one or two movies that I've seen with her.
MS. VASQUEZ: Great, thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Number 2, thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: On the following celebrities, I guess I just meant I read about them and their style. I just wanted to clear that up.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you for that.
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't know.
MS. VASQUEZ: So style question only. Thank you, Number 2.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sorry.
MS. VASQUEZ: No; that's okay. Thank you for that clarification.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 15.
MS. VASQUEZ: Just general entertainment movies.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you seen a film?
MS. VASQUEZ: I can't remember.
MS. VASQUEZ: With Ms. Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't know.
MS. VASQUEZ: But you've heard of her?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: 16. Just a movie. Just one.
MS. VASQUEZ: What film?
JUROR NUMBER 16: Aquaman.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Fantastic. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: I haven't seen any movies, but I just heard about her in the context of their relationship.
MS. VASQUEZ: The relationship meaning Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 19.
MS. VASQUEZ: Only what I said earlier, their marriage.
MS. VASQUEZ: Understood.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 21. Movies?
JUROR NUMBER 21: Movies.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you seen Ms. Heard in any films?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah. Aquaman.
MS. VASQUEZ: Any others that come to mind
MS. VASQUEZ: Probably, but I don't remember.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank.you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are any of you a member or active participant in any groups that identify with the Me Too movement? A show of hands. Sorry.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are any of you a member or active participant in any groups that identify with the Me Too movement?
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm sorry, Number 3, did you raise your hand?
JUROR NUMBER 3: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Apologies.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do any of you hold the opinion that a person's account of abuse or sexual assault should be believed without question? By a raise of hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 18? No?
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you hold the opinion that people rarely or almost never make false accusations of y abuse or sexual assault?
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody in the first row?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 21, do you have something? No.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you hear that a male has accused his female spouse or partner of being physically abusive, do you tend to believe him or are you skeptical?
MS. VASQUEZ: Would you please raise your hand if you're skeptical.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you -- I'm sorry, I apologize. Number 20.
THE COURT: Wait for the microphone.
MS. VASQUEZ: If I'm going too quickly, just, please.
MS. VASQUEZ: Let me take a minute to think about everything
MS. VASQUEZ: I'll slow down my pace.
MS. VASQUEZ: No, you're fine. If it's a question about how it's rare for someone to make a false claim when they feel abused, I feel that it is an emotional thing, and, so, if they feel violated, I would believe that they've been I violated, but, of course, you can't know without
MS. VASQUEZ: Questioning; which your previous question asked. Then this recent one you just asked was, I don't know, I forgot.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you hold the opinion 6. that people rarely or almost never make false accusations of abuse or sexual assault? Do you hold that opinion, that people rarely make false accusations of abuse or sexual assault?
JUROR NUMBER 20: I think that when they do feel that they're being assaulted, there is something there. But to what degree, that's another question.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you tend to believe that if someone makes an accusation, right, of abuse or sexual assault, for example, that usually they're telling the truth?
MS. VASQUEZ: The word accusation makes it seem like they're. not telling the truth. I would just say that if they're expressing that they feel a certain way, then they should look into that to see if it is an accusation or it really did happen.
MS. VASQUEZ: MS . VASQUEZ: Yeah, no. That's very much helpful.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is there a reason that you feel that way? Can you express your reason why?
MS. VASQUEZ: Because relationships are complicated, and when you're involved with someone, another individual there's a lot of feelings that come into play, and, like, at times, you might think this is what you want but, perhaps, not really -- you end up thinking that's not really what you wanted and then eventually that abuse or violation for being violated has come to surface, and then you question yourself that it didn't happen. So I think that it's kind of like multiple levels to it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Understood. Given that this case involves Mr. Depp claiming that Ms. Heard has falsely accused him, is it fair to say that you have (indiscernible) time in your mind?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: So would it be difficult for you to be entirely impartial?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't think.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'll try to slow down because I know I'm trying to talk to a lot of people.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you hear that a male has accused a female spouse or partner of being physically abusive, do you tend to believe him or are you skeptical?
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone have any skepticism?
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you or a family member, or someone close to you, ever had any education, training, work, or other experience involving the legal field? Let's start with that one.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't know if it directly applies. My wife is a former police officer, my father-in-law is the head of the Southeast for all federal bureau prisons, and just other people of that nature.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else who -- okay. Number 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: Previously worked in law enforcement.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And what, specifically?
MS. VASQUEZ: I worked for the FBI.
MS. VASQUEZ: You worked for the FBI. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 18.
MS. VASQUEZ: I worked as a family law paralegal for seven years, then I worked here for the Circuit Court for six years, and I've been with the police department for three years.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Again, same part of the first part of the question. Have you or a family member, or someone close to you, ever have any education, training, work or other experience involving media or news? Media or hews? Anyone?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, Number 12.
MS. VASQUEZ: Both of my parents
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay, Do they work for a firm or a specific publication?
MS. VASQUEZ: My mom works for Publication Professionals, it's an editing company, and my dad works for Sage Publications, formerly Congressional Quarterly.
MS. VASQUEZ: My mom is the editor of Publication Professionals, they edit for people in World Bank. My dad works for Sage Publications, formerly Congressional Quarterly, as a content manager.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Oh, I'm sorry, Number 16. Apologies.
MS. VASQUEZ: My mother works for a company called Media Matters for America. It does work with the government.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm sorry, I didn't catch that name.
MS. VASQUEZ: Media Matters for America.
MS. VASQUEZ: Media Matters. Fantastic. Thank you. Have you or a family member, or someone close to you, ever had any education, training, work or other experience involving the entertainment industry? Same question. You, someone close to you, a family member had any training, work or other experience involving the medical field?
MS. VASQUEZ: We'll start with Number 27.
JUROR NUMBER 27: My wife is a nurse.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your wife is a nurse. What does she specialize in?
MS. VASQUEZ: Operating room nurse.
MS. VASQUEZ: Fantastic.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 2.
MS. VASQUEZ: My brother-in-law is a pediatrician.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 14.
MS. VASQUEZ: Back to the previous question, I apologize. My husband volunteers as a roadie kind of thing for bands. So he just helps out with sound and setup. But that was regarding the entertainment.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, okay. Fantastic.
MS. VASQUEZ: I just forgot about it.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is lie a musician?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, he does sound.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 16.
MS. VASQUEZ: My uncle works as a nurse in Maryland.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 19.
JUROR NUMBER 19: My mom was a nurse and nurse educator for over 25 years.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: My sister-in-law is a registered nurse in home health care right now, but other stuff in the past.
MS. VASQUEZ: What type of nurse is she?
JUROR NUMBER 26: I'm not sure exactly. I know she does home health care now.
MS. VASQUEZ: Home health care?
MS. VASQUEZ: I think she's an RN.
MS. VASQUEZ: Great.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 29.
MS. VASQUEZ: My mom is a registered nurse and cousin is an anesthesiologist for NYU.
MS. VASQUEZ: What kind of nurse is your mom?
MS. VASQUEZ: Not practicing, but she has her certificate and master's degree.
MS. VASQUEZ: What type of nurse was she before?
MS. VASQUEZ: I know she works in the emergency, so --
MS. VASQUEZ: Emergency room nurse?
JUROR NUMBER 29: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Wonderful.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 6.
MS. VASQUEZ: Just to clarify, was this for yourself or family member?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, I'm sorry. Apologize. For you or family member or someone close to you.
MS. VASQUEZ: So my grandmother was a nurse, and I'm currently a medical assistant.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And are you working as a medical assistant?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, for a podiatrist.
MS. VASQUEZ: Podiatrist.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 10.
MS. VASQUEZ: I have a cousin who, i believe, is an orthopedic surgeon.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Great. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Same preface of the question. Have you, family member or someone close to you ever had any education, training, work or other experience involving psychology or counseling? By a show of hands. Psychology or counseling?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 27.
MS. VASQUEZ: My wife majored in psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, but she works as a nurse now.
MS. VASQUEZ: But she majored in it. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 16.
MS. VASQUEZ: My sister minored in psychology, but she works as a social worker.
MS. VASQUEZ: So your sister works as a social worker, and she minored in psychology?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: And does she live here?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Anyone else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you or a family member or someone close to you ever had any education, training, work or other experience involving abuse, advocacy, or care?
MS. VASQUEZ: Did you say experience?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah. Abuse, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 14.
MS. VASQUEZ: I was a victim of abuse and I grew up in foster care.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you for sharing that. And in the questions that are coming up, if you would like to discuss --
MS. VASQUEZ: Dealt with it years ago. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: My apologies. Thank you for sharing that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you ever been in a position of leadership, such as supervisor of a job, head of a committee?
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Let's start with Number 25.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm a supervisor at Costco and I do leadership group.
MS. VASQUEZ: You're a supervisor and, sorry, I didn't catch that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Costco grocery center.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Is that a position that you hold now?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah?
MS. VASQUEZ: Almost 15 years.
MS. VASQUEZ: Almost 15 years. Impressive. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm a project manager for a construction company, so I .do oversee some aspects and people.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. How many people do you oversee?
MS. VASQUEZ: Kind of in charge of making sure all departments kind of come together so they have a quality final product on time. I won't say, specifically, I'm their boss but I've got to make sure everything is correct.
MS. VASQUEZ: And taken care of?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Understood. Anyone else, leadership position? Number 10.
JUROR NUMBER 10: I've owned and operated my own firm and I've also been employed and dealing with people, outside consultants.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you say your own from what is --
MS. VASQUEZ: Architectural.
MS. VASQUEZ: And you currently own that?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't. Currently, I'm working for another employer.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you hold any type of leadership position working for that employer?
MS. VASQUEZ: Responsibilities of consultants, so managing them
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 4.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm a head foreman at my construction company. I am in charge of, like, three to four people a day, and I'm in charge of around three to four jobs a week.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else with leadership experience?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 12.
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm a teacher, so I'm in charge of a bunch of 16, 17, 18-year-olds.
MS. VASQUEZ: Got it. I love that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 2.
JUROR NUMBER 2: I was a town manager, and I manage 25 people. And I've been on various boards and associations in leadership positions. I am not currently a town manager.
MS. VASQUEZ: What particular boards or associations have you held --
MS. VASQUEZ: My children's preschool and my neighborhood association, Toastmasters, graduate school, et cetera. I mean, O many.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Number 2.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else? Number 14.
JUROR NUMBER 14: I was a network operations manager. I had several employees under me. I'm not currently.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are you not --
MS. VASQUEZ: Now I work for (indiscernible).
MS. VASQUEZ: Great. Thank you very much.
MS. VASQUEZ: Let's start with 15.
JUROR NUMBER 15: I was an executive at a IT company. Now I run my own IT company. I supervisor people.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, IT. Number 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: It's not the position I'm in right now, but I was a staff supervisor, so I was just in charge of, like, maybe four to six people.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Now you're currently in that position?
JUROR NUMBER 28: I'm not in that position.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 18.
MS. VASQUEZ: I was a supervisor when I worked here at the Circuit Court, and I've also served on the board of the Fairfax County Mothers of Multiples, a nonprofit.
MS. VASQUEZ: What is that nonprofit?
MS. VASQUEZ: It's twin moms.
MS. VASQUEZ: Twin moms. Number 19.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, I oversaw a department, the hospitality department. Soccer coach and Sunday school teacher. Some leadership in that regard.
MS. VASQUEZ: Absolutely.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are you currently married or have you been married in the past? If so, raise your hand.
MS. VASQUEZ: They have the microphone. Let's start over here. I'll come back.
MS. VASQUEZ: Currently married or have been married in the past. What I need to know is, are you currently married?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married in the past?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: What was your spouse or partner's occupation?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: IT.
MS. VASQUEZ: IT?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next person.
MS. VASQUEZ: Currently married or married in the past?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR NUMBER: Married. And occupation is entrepreneur.
MS. VASQUEZ: Entrepreneur. Does he specialize in anything?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Culinary.
MS. VASQUEZ: Culinary.
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Currently married, and he is a customer success manager for an IT company.
MS. VASQUEZ: Customer success manager for an IT company. Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Over here. Number 15.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married, and a financial management and entrepreneurship.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your spouse?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married or been married, Number 14?
JUROR NUMBER 14: Married. Telecommunications engineer.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Number 27.
JUROR NUMBER 27: Married, nurse.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married nurse, right. Number 11.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married 54 years.
MS. VASQUEZ: Congratulations.
MS. VASQUEZ: And he's a Colonel in the Air Force.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you for his service.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 10.
MS. VASQUEZ: Previously married. Facilities manager.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Married, and my wife is a business manager at a community college.
MS. VASQUEZ: At a college?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Community college?
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Married. My wife is a -- I'm trying to figure out what I can tell you. She works for DOD. She used to be a police officer, and I had left out that she used to work for a law finn at one point as well, for a short time.
MS. VASQUEZ: What was the name of the law firm?
MS. VASQUEZ: It's not local. It's in Georgia
MS. VASQUEZ: Was she a lawyer?
JUROR NUMBER 26: She was, like, a legal assistant.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody here been married or currently married?
MS. VASQUEZ: Currently married but she is a housewife.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. I'm sorry, your number, sir? 23?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, you are currently married and your wife is a housewife?
JUROR NUMBER 23: Yes, she is.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you. Just want to make sure everybody hears.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 2. Pass the mic. Thank you.
JUROR NUMBER 2: I'm married and my husband is a software sales director.
MS. VASQUEZ: And Number 22.
JUROR NUMBER 22: Married over 30 years ago, (indiscernible).
MS. VASQUEZ: And what did your spouse --
JUROR NUMBER 22: Computer engineer.
MS. VASQUEZ: Computer engineer. Okay. Great.
MS. VASQUEZ: Now the question is, do any of you have children that live with you, currently, in the house? sorry, we'll start with anyone with children that currently live in the house.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 2.
JUROR NUMBER 2: Yes, I have two that are currently living in the house, a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old.
MS. VASQUEZ: Any others with children that currently live in the house?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 3.
JUROR NUMBER 3: Two daughters and two grandsons.
MS. VASQUEZ: Two daughters and two grandchildren, grandsons. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else with children that currently live in the house?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
JUROR NUMBER 26: I have a son, his birthday was yesterday, two years old.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else with children in the house?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 15.
JUROR NUMBER 15: 17-year-old, 18-year-old and 20-year-old.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And they're all at home?
JUROR NUMBER 15: All at home.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Number 18.
JUROR NUMBER 18: I have 5-year-old twin girls.
MS. VASQUEZ: I have a 13-year-old daughter.
MS. VASQUEZ: 13-year-old daughter, Number 19.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, this is a question that if you raise your hand and the answer is yes, I think it might be best that we have a sidebar. So I'm just previewing that for everyone. So the question is, have you or a family member, or anyone close to you, ever had any personal or professional experience, of any kind, involving domestic abuse or sexual assault? And let me first see a show of hand.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 21, Number 12, Number 3.
MS. VASQUEZ: Can you repeat it?
MS. VASQUEZ: Absolutely. I'm going to repeat the question.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you, a family member or anyone close to you ever had any personal or professional experience, of any kind, involving domestic abuse or sexual assault? By a show of hands. Number 3, Number 12, Number 4, Number 28, Number 20, and 21.
MS. VASQUEZ: So, Your Honor, may we approach one at a time?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you. So, let's go with 21.
THE COURT: All right. Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: So, my ex was arrested for assault.
THE COURT: Domestic assault on you?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: How long ago was that?
THE COURT: One year and a half ago.
THE COURT: A year and a half ago. Did you go to trial?
THE COURT: I don't know yet. I haven't heard anything.
THE COURT: Okay. Was he arrested here in Fairfax?
JUROR NUMBER 21: Yes.
THE COURT: You haven't had any contact with him since then?
THE COURT: Huh-uh.
THE COURT: Were you living together?
THE COURT: Yeah, we just moved in together. Well, he got a no-contact order.
THE COURT: Do you still have a protective order against him?
THE COURT: I think it's been issued by the court. So I think it's --
THE COURT: Two years.
THE COURT: But I don't know.
THE COURT: Did that experience, in any way-- will that affect you here because there is going to be some evidence?
THE COURT: No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: You can put your experience to the side and be fair and impartial?
THE COURT: Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, I've had time to heal.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: I know I can separate.
THE COURT: Do you have follow-up?
MS. VASQUEZ: Is there any reason you think that, starting this case, you'll be in favor of one side over another?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, absolutely not.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
THE COURT: Any questions?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: All right. You can have a 1.1 seat back.
THE COURT: Next one.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next one that raised their hand, was it Number 20? Thank you.
THE COURT: So I was molested by my cousin when I was about 11 or 12.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Then I've had a couple instances where things were just against my will.
THE COURT: You're not going to renew those relationships?
THE COURT: No. I'm in a perfectly healthy relationship now.
THE COURT: Good. Congratulations.
THE COURT: I guess, personally, I know what it's like to go through and not know that it's happening.
THE COURT: So, would that experience affect your ability to be impartial in this case? There will be some testimony about domestic assault and possible sexual abuse. Knowing that, are you going to be able to put your experiences aside and be fair and impartial in this case?
THE COURT: I believe so. I have worked on myself a lot. I know every situation, there are two sides to everything. I also know that some people might overexaggerate certain situations and that shouldn't be. It depends on facts.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR NUMBER 20: And the evidence.
THE COURT: Sounds like you're in a good place. I just want to make sure that nothing would trigger you or anything, and I want to make sure you'll be comfortable.
THE COURT: I'm fine. Just wanted to be completely honest.
MS. VASQUEZ: I appreciate that honesty.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you think that this will in any way make you feel a certain way about this case, one way or another?
MS. VASQUEZ: Frankly, I don't know either party very well, so there's no way me leaning toward anyone, and I know they are celebrities, so I don't follow up on that at all. So I have, literally-- I'm a blank slate. I have no idea who they are, personally.
THE COURT: All right. Any follow-up?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: You can have a seat. Thank you.
THE COURT: Your next one.
MS. VASQUEZ: Next one that raised their hand. Number 28. Thank you.
THE COURT: So it was domestic violence, not sexual assault. It was my family, not my immediate family, not my mom and dad, it was, like, my aunt and uncle. My grandma and grandpa had problems with that. I think that was it for that question. Then the other question you O asked, I've been in a little bit of counseling myself, it was just a few sessions, but I haven't had any, like, work or training in it. I did a couple myself, but I wanted to tell you about that.
THE COURT: So with your aunt and uncle and your grandparents, was that a long time ago or was that recent?
THE COURT: I think, like, five to seven years -- five years ago or something. I don't think it was very recent.
THE COURT: Is that something that you can put to the side, just have this case, the evidence in this case, and be fair and impartial?
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything further on that?
THE COURT: You can have a seat.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you for sharing.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next person that raised their hand to that question. Number 12.
THE COURT: All right. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: A former student of mine reported that he had been abused and I had to report it.
THE COURT: You had to report it.
THE COURT: That's the extent of it.
THE COURT: How long ago was that?
THE COURT: Last year. Ninth grader didn't give me any details, just I had to report it.
THE COURT: I assume that wouldn't affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next juror, Number 3. Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Kind of, like, specifically back when I was a kid and my parents were still together. Like, they would, like, have arguments and sometimes the arguments were violent.
THE COURT: When you say "violent," they'd be physical?
THE COURT: My dad was, like, an alcoholic.
THE COURT: And he would abuse your !Smother?
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: Did she ever have to go to the hospital or were the police ever involved?
JUROR NUMBER 3: No.
THE COURT: Just something that you witnessed?
THE COURT: It was just, like, mostly verbal but sometimes it got violent.
THE COURT: Sorry to hear that. Based on those experiences, do you think you can put those to the side and be fair and impartial in this case, based just on the evidence? No issue?
THE COURT: Uh-huh. IO right.
THE COURT: Anything further? All You can have a seat.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 4. Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: This just happened a long time ago, my uncle and his wife, I can't remember her name, but Kenneth Sole, they had some problems back when they were younger. They've both passed away now, so it doesn't really bother me.
THE COURT: It was a violent relationship?
THE COURT: Not violent, but they were aggressive towards each other.
THE COURT: You can put that aside and be fair and impartial in this case?
THE COURT: It's been a long time.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Uh-huh.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 26.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So, personally, nothing on record, but I've been abused domestically. My history, my grandfather, my father, pretty much everyone. My wife's side, very verbally abusive. Now that this is all coming up, I couldn't be completely unbiased, to be honest with you. It's bringing up a lot of --
THE COURT: It's hindering you.
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: That's why we ask these questions. We want to make sure. You don't think you could sit in this case and be fair, that would be in the back of your head the whole time?
JUROR NUMBER 26: I want to be fair. I don't want to be biased. Sorry to waste your time.
THE COURT: We're here for the next seven weeks, if you haven't heard.
THE COURT: Does anybody have any objection to him being taken off the panel?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
THE COURT: You can have a seat in the back of the courtroom
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else need a sidebar? Number 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: JUROR NUMBER 2.8: I'm so sorry, I forgot to tell you one more thing.
THE COURT: You want to come back up again?
THE COURT: My brother and his girlfriend have a very volatile relationship. I don't think anything has officially happened, but a few things may be broken. They've broken up a lot, and they are broken up at the moment. I don't know that it ever got physical, but it was to the point my mom had to go down to South Carolina to take care of my brother. So nothing, like, legally happened Okay.
THE COURT: But it was volatile.
THE COURT: I assume that will not be in your way of being fair and impartial?
THE COURT: No.
THE COURT: But thank you for adding that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank.you.
THE COURT: Okay. The next juror.
COURT BAILIFF: Juror 31, please, come forward. 31.
THE COURT: No, 21, you can stay.
THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, I'm going to ask you every question that you've heard so far.
THE COURT: I know you've been listening to the questions, so based on all the questions that have been asked, is there any answer that would differ or that you would want to bring to our attention?
THE COURT: The people who are in the medical field, my daughter's a nurse. And person who's trained in the legal field, my daughter is a lawyer, she's trying to pass the bar, and got a job at the contract section at Universal Studios.
MS. VASQUEZ: At Universal Studios in Los Angeles?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes,. so excited.
MS. VASQUEZ: She also works in entertainment?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
JUROR NUMBER 31: Yes. She just began her job two weeks ago.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Number 29 is raising his hand.
THE COURT: Do you have something to add also? Do you have anything else to add, ma'am? Are you good?
THE COURT: I believe I misheard the question about the legal training.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: I have three active lawyers in my family and one retired clerk. So I don't know if that changes anything, but, yeah.
MS. VASQUEZ: They work here in Virginia?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. Two of them work IO in California and one works in Georgia.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And the retired clerk also?
MS. VASQUEZ: Also in Georgia.
MS. VASQUEZ: Great. Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your Honor, with your lead, may I ask a couple questions I asked previously, just with Juror 31?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you read or heard of something about my client, Johnny Depp, other than film?
MS. VASQUEZ: I really have not. Actually, my daughter, she knew that I had the jury duty and she was telling me, there's a trial going on and there's a Johnny Depp trial in Fairfax, maybe you would be on it. So, that's the first time I heard of him, actually. I don't watch a lot of television.
MS. VASQUEZ: Is that something that maybe we discuss in sidebar, about what she's heard about the case from her daughter?
THE COURT: Did you hear specifics about the case?
THE COURT: No, I didn't.
THE COURT: Okay. We're good.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you formed any negative opinions of Johnny Depp based on something.you heard or movies with him?
MS. VASQUEZ: I don't know anything about the case or him
MS. VASQUEZ: Or about Mr. Depp?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Are you a member or active participate in any groups that identify with the Me Too movement?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, I'm not.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. And do you hold the opinion that a person's account of abuse should be believed without question?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you feel you can be fair and impartial even though there are . allegations that happened in the case with sexual assault? Have any of you -- thank you very much, 31. I think you're up to speed now.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you ever served .on a jury before? By a show of hands.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 2. Was it a civil or criminal trial?
JUROR NUMBER 2: Criminal.
MS. VASQUEZ: Criminal. And how long ago? ... or five years ago.
MS. VASQUEZ: And were you ever the jury foreperson?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: How would you describe your experience, just generally speaking?
MS. VASQUEZ: Interesting. You see a lot in the courtroom
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anybody in the first row?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 15.
MS. VASQUEZ: So on the jury for two different cases, 20 and 24 years ago.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Two different cases.
MS. VASQUEZ: Were they civil or criminal?
MS. VASQUEZ: One civil, one criminal.
MS. VASQUEZ: And you said 20 years ago?
MS. VASQUEZ: Over 20 years ago.
MS. VASQUEZ: And were you ever the jury foreperson?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: How would you describe your experiences?
MS. VASQUEZ: Eye-opening.
MS. VASQUEZ: Eye-opening.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 18.
MS. VASQUEZ: I served on a criminal jury trial in Loudoun County in, probably, 2007.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Were you the jury foreperson?
MS. VASQUEZ: No.
MS. VASQUEZ: And how would you describe your experience?
MS. VASQUEZ: I studied criminal justice in college, so I'm one that enjoys being on the jury.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Have any of you or anyone in your family ever been involved in civil. lawsuits?
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone or family member been involved in a civil lawsuit? No?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 16. Apologies.
MS. VASQUEZ: My mom, she was in a case with a father taking the child away from the mother.
MS. VASQUEZ: So that was -- was she a juror or?
MS. VASQUEZ: Oh, she was a juror.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Sorry. Let me make that a little more clear. As a party.
MS. VASQUEZ: Have you or anyone in your family ever been involved in a civil lawsuit as a party? So, as a plaintiff or defendant or a witness.
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 28.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, my family was in a car accident. I think it was for the balance after what the insurance company wouldn't cover.
MS. VASQUEZ: When you say your family--
MS. VASQUEZ: I was a minor at the time, so it was my parents.
MS. VASQUEZ: How old were you at the time?
MS. VASQUEZ: I was 15.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Number 31. Come in. Would you like to approach the bench?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am
THE COURT: My husband was accused for sexual harassment a couple years ago, but it's been settled out of court.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: And everything is all good.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: So, it's from an employee, a waitress. My husband was the owner.
THE COURT: Okay. It's all been resolved now?
THE COURT: Yeah, it's been resolved. I mean, there was some stuff going on, like, green card and stuff. It was a false accusation.
THE COURT: I understand.
THE COURT: Anything with that experience that would affect you to be fair and impartial in this case?
THE COURT: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Any followup to that?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. Thank you very much.
MS. VASQUEZ: Jury service is a sacrifice, and we understand that all of you have other places to be today and for the next couple weeks, so I need to ask you if there's anyone here who thinks it's unfair for Johnny Depp to bring this case? By a show of hands. Anyone that feels it's unfair for my client to bring this case? Would that affect anybody?
MS. VASQUEZ: Does anyone feel that it's unfair that jurors have to sit through a long trial such as this? By a show of hands, anybody?
MS. VASQUEZ: Do you hold a strong negative opinion of people who use crude or foul language? By a show of hands, does anyone hold a negative opinion for anyone who uses crude or foul language? Would anyone here have any difficulty hearing or discussing evidence and testimony about allegations of domestic abuse or sexual assault?
MS. VASQUEZ: And based on everything you've heard so far, is there anything about this case that makes you question whether you could be completely fair and impartial to both parties? By a show of hands, anything?
MS. VASQUEZ: If you find the evidence through this trial supports Mr. Depp's claim that Ms. Heard -- excuse me, Mr. Depp's claims against Ms. Heard, would you have any difficulty finding for him and awarding damages given his status as a celebrity? Let me repeat the question.
MS. VASQUEZ: If you find that the evidence in this trial support Mr. Depp's claims against Ms. Heard, would you have any difficulty finding for him and awarding damages given his celebrity status? No?
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm just going to read for you a potential list of witnesses who may be called by Mr. Depp, my client, either live or by video deposition. Will you, please, let me know, at the end of me reading the list, whether you know any of these witnesses personally, okay?
MS. VASQUEZ: I have a long list, so bear with me.
MS. VASQUEZ: John C. Depp, I, Mr. Depp; Sean Bett, Gina Deuters, Stephen Deuters, Ben King, Malcolm Connolly, Travis McGivern, Starling Jenkins, Dr. David Kipper, Isaac Baruch, Kevin Murphy, Christian Carino, Christi Dembrowski, Tara Roberts, Edward White, Sam Sarkar, Paul Bettany, Keenan Wyatt, Jack Whigham, Leonard Damian, Robin Baum, Andy Milner, Samantha McMillen, Adam Waldman, Trinity Esparza, Kate James, Shannon Curry, Richard Gilbert, Richard Marks, Michael Spindler, Doug Bania, Brian Neumeister, Kimberly Ann Collins, Dr. Richard Shaw, Rachel Frost.
MS. VASQUEZ: Anyone?
THE COURT: All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you very much, Your Honor. And thank you all for your honesty and your attention.
THE COURT: Would you like the LIN?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Good afternoon. Thank you all very, very much for being here. We very much appreciate this. I'm a huge believer in the jury system And we can't do it without, and we really appreciate it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let me start with introductions. My name is Elaine Charlson Bredehoft. I'm with the firm of Charlson Bredehoft Cohen Brown & Nadelhaft. With me and my team is Ben Rottenborn, he's a partner at Wood Rogers in Roanoke, Virginia, and my partner Adam Nadelhaft, who is also with my firm. You will also hear -- let's give this another try.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How's this?
MS. BREDEHOFT: JUROR: Good, thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Testing, testing. Good? Thank you, Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Also part of our legal team, you will see and hear from occasionally includes Josh Treece, Clarissa Pintado, David Murphy, Karen Stemland, and Elaine McCarthy. In addition to that, you will see, from time to time, part of our paralegal and our legal staff, Michelle Bredehoft, Heather Colson, Leslie Kopp, Alexandra Bredehoft, and Kathy Baker. Together, our team represents Amber Heard, the defendant and counterclaimant in this case.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you ever heard any of those names? Do you know those people, kids, school, anything like that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I'm going to read my list of witnesses early on and it's going to be a long one. You're not going to hear from all these . witnesses, just as you're not going to hear from theirs. We couldn't put them aH on and be done in six weeks but they are all potential and possibilities, depends on how the evidence developments over the case.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Amber Heard -- what I would like you to do is just raise your hand if you know any of these people or if you feeL in some way, you have some strong view of them or that might impact you if you actually heard from them.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Adir Abergel, Julian Ackert, Kathryn Arnold, Amy Banks, Ellen Barkin, Lisa Beane, Adam Bercovici, Alan Blaustein, Jacob Bloom, Cowan Connell, Candie Davidson-Goldbronn, Laura Divenere, Josh Drew, Erin Boerum-Falati, James Franco, Officer William Gatlin, Eric George, Jodi Gottlieb, Cornelius Harrell, Whitney Henriquez, Dawn Hughes, Melanie Inglessis, Allen Jacobs, Bonnie Jacobs, Tracey Jacobs, lots of Jacobs, Michelle Jordan, Taylor Kouvelis, Jessica Kovacevic, Sergeant Annand Lemoyne, Debbie Lloyd, Officer Roberto Lopez, Joel Mandel, Elizabeth Marz, Brandon McCulloh, Richard Moore, Michelle Mulrooney, Elon Musk, Raquel Pennington, Anthony Romero, Sergeant Marie Sandanaga, Rami Sarabi, Ronald Schnell, Kristy Sexton, David Spiegel, iO Tillett Wright, Tasya van Ree, Bruce Witkin, and Benjamin Wizner.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, in this case, because the case was brought here by both Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp, who are in California and the vast majority of the witnesses are out in California, many, many of the witnesses that you will hear in this case are by deposition designation. What's happened is we've taken their deposition, both sides, I've asked questions, they've asked questions or they've asked questions and I asked questions, therefore one of my team and their team, and what we do is we, what is called designate, we highlight what we want to have before you. And any objections, we argued before the Court.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The Court makes the rulings, and then they're spliced, they're all by video, they splice the video, except.for one, I think there's a deposition that isn't So it's spliced So when you hear that, when you see it, they're going to play videos to you, and it's going to have questions and answers from both sides and it's not necessary, I may have designated, for example, something that one of them asked and they may have designated something that I have asked. But for convenience and to move this along, the entire video will be played at the same time.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there anyone here that will have any difficulty with determining, keeping an open mind about what the evidence is and listen to it, regardless if it's played in the plaintiff's case or the defendant's case, understanding that both sides have put in their question? Will anybody have any difficulty with that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Will anybody have any difficulty in giving the same weight to the testimony of these 12 people who are through video depositions to someone who might be on the stand? Is there anyone who might be more influenced by the person on the stand than these people who have also testified under oath? Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, for purposes of my questions after this, and I know some of th.is you've been thinking about, either when the Court was asking it or when Ms. Vasquez was asking. I'm going to define you as yourself, as well as significant family members including spouse, children, parents, siblings, and their families and close friends.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I earlier introduced you to the lawyers in our firms. Charlson Bredehoft Cohen Brown & Nadelhaft, we're located in Reston, Virginia. And Woods Rogers have offices in Roanoke, Charlottesville, Richmond and Lynchburg.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Has anyone ever contacted either of these finns for representation?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Has anyone ever been represented by either of these finns? Have any of you ever been involved in any litigation in which either of these finns was on the other side?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I'm going to ask you the same thing for counsel for Mr. Depp, who is represented by Brown Rudnick. The attorneys have been introduced to you. The attorneys are located in Washington, D.C., California, Boston, and New York.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Has anyone ever contacted any of these attorneys or their law firm for representation or been represented by them. Have any of you ever been involved in on the other side of litigation involving this law firm?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, I served as a substitute judge in the General District Court in Fairfax Circuit Court -- Fairfax General District Court and Juvenile Domestic Relations Court in 1998 to 2014. Has anyone here appeared in front of me in either a Fairfax Juvenile Domestic Relations Court or the General District Court?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you've been asked a lot of questions about the training, which will make my job a lot easier here. But I'm not sure that we have completely cleared whether everyone, anyone has ever been trained or has served as a police officer. Some of you identified and answered the question when it was talking about legal training.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there anyone here, and it's you, including my definition, who has served as a police officer, or law enforcement, other than the ones who have already answered because I know we have ones that have answered and we have those?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, you've been asked a lot of questions by the Court, as well as counsel for Mr. Depp, about your knowledge and understanding of Mr. Depp. I'm just going to ask a few more follow-up questions to that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you have seen more than three films of Mr. Depp's? And now I'm going to keep going so we can slow this down How many of you have seen more than five films of Mr. Depp?
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you have seen more than seven? Well, that takes out my asking any more. Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you seen Mr. Depp in any commercials, most recently, the Dior Sauvage cologne commercial?
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you have a favorable opinion of Mr. Depp coming into this litigation, in this case?
MS. BREDEHOFT: JUROR: What do you mean by "favorable"?
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's a good point. How many of you like Mr. Depp or you think positive things about him? Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll ask the flip. How many of you came in -- oh, go ahead. Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, okay. Positive in what way? This is Juror 28.
JUROR NUMBER 28: My memory might be failing me, but I think I saw one time where he dressed up like someone, like his Pirates of the Caribbean character, for, I think, a kid in this hospital, but it's a while ago, so I don't know if I'm remembering that correctly.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Other than that memory, do you have any other positive memories of Mr. Depp?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, do you believe, because you had that positive view of Mr. Depp, you would have difficulty believing testimony or evidence that portrays Mr. Depp in an unfavorable light?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe, because you have a favorable impression of Mr. Depp as an actor, that you would ignore evidence or testimony that's negative towards Mr. Depp?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask that of the rest of you as well. Based on the fact that a number of you have seen three,five, or more films of Mr. Depp, would any of you, because you've watched those, and he's been in them, he's done some great roles, I love Pirates, Jack Sparrow, would y of you have difficulty, as a result of that, being able to hear the .evidence and testimony in this case that may portray him in a different light than his characters? Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe that people may act differently in public than they do in private?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll ask the flip of that. Is there anyone here who believes that people act the same in public as they do in private? Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about Amber Heard. Counsel for Mr. Depp has asked you a little bit about this, and what I'm going to ask is, how many of you have seen more than one movie of Amber Heard, in which she was in? Well, then I can't get to three or five or seven.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. For those of you, there were a couple of you who said you had seen Aquaman. Based on that, did you have a favorable opinion of Amber Heard?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you ever seen Amber Heard in the L'Oreal campaign commercials?
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you have had a favorable opinion of Amber Heard coming into this trial?
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you have had an unfavorable opinion of Amber Heard coming into this trial?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Since I have no show of hands for both of those, I'm going to say how many of you are coming into this with a completely neutral opinion of Amber Heard? Thank you. That was unanimous. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Now, Mr. Depp filed a complaint against Amber Heard alleging that Amber Heard defamed him in writing an op-ed, opinion editorial, that was published in the Washington Post in December of 2018.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone here have a negative view of the Washington Post?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Number 11. Let me get the mic. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It doesn't express my values.
MS. BREDEHOFT: In what way?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Many ways.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you prefer to go to the bench on this? You might be more comfortable.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I just feel that slander, the news that we get in the Washington Post and I don't think they always -- they have too many Pinocchios for their paper.
THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. Anybody have any follow-up questions?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I do. The fact that there was an op-ed published in the Washington Post by Ms. Heard, would that impact you or cause you to think less of Ms. Heard?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. I don't even think-- we discontinued it. I've never read it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: So it wouldn't affect you as a juror?
THE COURT: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you very much.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I know this juror's opinion, but I'm going to ask the rest of you. Does anyone think that if a story or an op-ed appears in the Washington Post, that it must be true?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone think that if a story or op-ed appears in the Washington Post, that it must be false?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that people should not write op-eds to express their opinions or advocate opinions on matters of public concern? Anyone have a negative view of people who write op-eds? Does anyone believe that people's opinions should be protected when they're expressed in the form of an op-ed?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, I'm going to turn to a little bit of domestic abuse. You've been asked a number of questions, so I will try to limit mine.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know of anyone who has been falsely accused of domestic abuse? And the "yous," again, are close family members, close friends.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Does anyone here believe that if a spouse hits their partner, that the partner cannot and should not hit back or otherwise defend themselves against being hit?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And if they do hit back, or otherwise defend themselves, does anyone here believe that the abuse is mutual or that they're both equally at fault?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that a spouse who has been the victim of repeated abuse cannot hit first, even as a preemptive strike in anticipation of trying to stave off further abuse? Does anyone believe that verbal arguments, including mere insults and name-calling, justifies one or the other escalating to a physical fight?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that a husband cannot rape or sexually assault his wife? Let me ask that again. You look confused. Does anyone believe that a husband cannot rape or sexually assault his wife? In other words --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, right, right, right. Understood.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I saw a little confusion.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse always call the police and cooperate fully in the investigation?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse always have immediately visible marks or injuries?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse always immediately seek medical attention? Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse always immediately leave their abuser?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse almost immediately tell someone else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that victims of domestic abuse would not attempt to cover up their injuries to avoid people seeing them and noticing?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe that a victim of domestic violence should leave her abuser and is as much to blame if they stayed in the relationship?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe the fact that a person who was abused as a child justifies being abused in adult life?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone believe the fact that a person who was abused as a .child justifies or excuses their being an abuser in adult life?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone here believe that if you're not professionally trained as a doctor or other healthcare professional in the field of domestic abuse or IPV, intimate partner violence, that you know how people should act or do act in these situations? In other words, do you already have preformed views, even if you don't have training, of how you think someone who was a victim of abuse should act?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe the police always have to be called in domestic abuse cases?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you hold it against the victim if they did not call or cooperate with the police?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe that a victim of domestic abuse always has to seek medical treatment?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you hold it against the victim if they did not seek medical treatment?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone here believe that if only the two people involved in the domestic abuse were the witnesses to it, that they can never find somebody liable for domestic abuse? Does anyone think that during the attack, the victims should ordinarily have time and ability to film the attack? Do you understand that not everything can be captured as quickly by picture or video?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you disbelieve the victim because they were unable to capture the abuse on film or video?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to talk a little bit about the role of alcohol and drugs.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you been told by anyone that you engaged in any type of aggressive or O abusive conduct while you were drunk or using drugs?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that someone using alcohol and drugs may be more likely to engage in domestic abuse?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that people who are engaging in drug or alcohol abuse are less likely to engage in domestic abuse?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Th rest of you probably don't have an opinion one way or the other. Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that if a person is high or drunk, that they are not at fault for engaging in domestic abuse? Does anyone believe that suspicions of your significant other cheating on you justifies domestic abuse?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe that jealousy can be the cause of domestic abuse? Just a show of hands, how many of you think that can be, jealousy can be a cause of domestic abuse? Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know anyone who became so angry that they've destroyed property? O Two jurors raised their hand, 28, 20, and 21.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Other than what you've already discussed with us at the bench, is there something beyond that? Okay. Then I'm going to ask you each to approach the bench.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, you said no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 20, can we have you? Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have a friend who would smash things, and then my brother also had anger issues growing up, so he would also smash things. I think that's it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: Any of those experiences affect your ability to be fair and impartial here?
THE COURT: I don't think so.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm very close.
THE COURT: That's fine. You can go back.
THE COURT: Those last couple of questions weren't on our script.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I spent a lot of time --
THE COURT: I'm telling you they weren't. I've been following our script. I mean--
MS. BREDEHOFT: My apologies.
THE COURT: They're done now. I want to make sure there's no more that aren't on our script.
MS. BREDEHOFT: My apologies, I spent a lot of time with that transcript.
THE COURT: I'm just concerned that we stay. It hasn't veered off too much, but there are a couple of questions that clearly were not ones that you had on there.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: I just want to make sure that you're sticking to the script.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I genuinely thought I had.
THE COURT: Genuinely or not, I don't. want it to go off the script.
MS. VASQUEZ: They weren't on our script either, You Honor.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Just to note. These are amounting, to -- Your Honor, she's not even asking questions.
THE COURT: But these are the questions -- most of them are the questions we went through, that's fine. We'll keep going. I'm assuming--
MS. BREDEHOFT: Which ones were not?
THE COURT: The filming ones were ones we had taken out. Also, the ones we took out something. I can't remember which one. It wasn't even _on my script, you said it, and it didn't show up on my script. But that's okay. I don't want to go backwards,
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Just going forward.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: I just don't want to call you out in the middle of it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Believe me, I apologize because I did.spend, literally, hours.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone think it is appropriate to destroy property in anger? Does anyone think it is appropriate to destroy property in anger.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Does anyone think it is appropriate to destroy property in anger?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there anyone here that does not use forms of social media?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And may I ask why? Oh, yeah, thank you. JUROR: I just believe I have a better life without. I don't have an interest. It's not important to me.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Probably a lot of people who would think that. Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you believe.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm also in that category.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, you are too?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't really use social media.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The same thing. Just not interested.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Do you believe a person's reputation can be affected by what is said on Twitter or other social media? How many of you believe it can be impacted by that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: How many of you believe it cannot, that it doesn't impact?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you ever signed a petition sent to you via email or social media?
MS. VASQUEZ: What was the question?
MS. BREDEHOFT: The question was, have you ever signed on to any petition sent to you via email or social media?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, we have two, three. Okay. Number 12, what were the circumstances? 8. mic.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll wait for the
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Juror Number 12, go ahead.
MS. BREDEHOFT: My college was trying to re -- they wanted to add -- they wanted to reconstruct a library, and in the process, they were going to move a whole bunch of books into storage, which would have made research harder for students, so I signed a petition to, you know, change their plan.
MS. BREDEHOFT: MS . BREDEHOFT: Okay. Was that a positive experience for you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, it was two clicks and type my name.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It was an easy thing to do and for a good cause?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Then we have -- we'll come back to you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I was wondering if you could repeat the question a couple questions ago about destroying property.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh. Does anyone think it is appropriate to destroy property when angry? Or the one before?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you know anyone who became so angry they destroyed property?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. If we could talk at sidebar.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: My brother.
THE COURT: If you could speak up just a little bit.
THE COURT: My brother has been known to break things when he gets really angry, so I didn't share that before, at least in details, but I wanted to share that. That's all.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would that impact you at all with hearing the testimony of breaking property, destroying property?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Very good. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, with that done, the petitions. And I think Juror Number 20 raised their hand.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just organizations that I'm supporting, they sent me stuff in an email, and like he said, click and -- two clicks and you're done.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you felt it was for a good cause?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Uh-huh.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You too?
MS. BREDEHOFT: JUROR: It was just for the animal cruelty act. It was sent to me via email, so I signed that and sent it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: For a good cause, again?
MS. BREDEHOFT: JUROR: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 16.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It was for the formation of graduation, how to handle it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Was this for graduation from high school, college?
MS. BREDEHOFT: College.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What was the nature of the petition?
MS. BREDEHOFT: To keep a profile of major programs in separate graduations, not into one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Was it a positive experience for you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you. Juror Number 3 -- 2, 2.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I was emailed a petition during COVID, it was for Loudoun High School sports. It was legislation to allow sports to continue during COVID, and it was a positive experience because I have children involved in that and I wanted them to get out of the house. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. Yes, that would make it a very positive experience. Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you ever tape-record or film yourself or friends? Kind of an odd question.
THE COURT: I think it's still in the social media context. Do you tape or film yourself with friends on social media?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. You do?
MS. BREDEHOFT: We run dog agility, so we just film each other and our runs and post them on social media.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Who else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, mostly, sports because I just don't pick up, like, a lot of info, like, sports matters and sport teams on it. Other than that, no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 4.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just pictures of, like, my dog, stuff like that. Something normal, nothing crazy.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's great.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do we have one? Yeah, we have one, then I'll come back
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just me and my brother and sisters share things with each other, make fun of each other and tease each other.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Positive?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, it's always positive.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 28, over here. We should just give you your own microphone
MS. BREDEHOFT: Similar to the other answers, just, like, friends, family, pets. Just positive.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Anybody else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would it surprise any of you to learn that some famous people regularly film and tape-record each other?
MS. BREDEHOFT: You will hear testimony of Mr. Depp and Amber Heard taping each other during sessions when they were trying to work out some of their . differences and relationship issues. You will hear and see some of those tape-recordings and those videos.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would anyone here be unable to consider these tapes or portions played because they were intended, at the time, to be private?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Amber Heard has had relationships with both men and women. Some refer to this as bisexual Does anyone believe they cannot view this case or Amber Heard in a fair and impartial manner because they are uncomfortable with Amber's sexual orientation?
MS. BREDEHOFT: There are several witnesses in this case, some of whom will testify the complete opposite of others who witnessed the same things. Will anyone here have difficulty assessing the motivations of the witnesses for telling the truth under the circumstances? You will hear testimony from several police officers from the LAPD, that's the Los Angeles Police Department. Do any of you have any preformed bias that all police officers always tell the truth.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Will you be able to listen to the evidence with an open mind and consider any motivations a police officer may have for being less than truthful under certain circumstances?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that you cannot believe actors because they play various roles in their careers?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Has anyone here been falsely accused of committing perjury or filing false police reports?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that a person cannot be damaged emotionally based on words published?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you know what the Daily Mail is?
JUROR NUMBER 12: It's a tabloid, isn't it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
JUROR NUMBER 12: That's all I know.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, Number 12 knows it's a tabloid. Do any of you have -- okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Go ahead, Juror Number 19.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Tabloid.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So you said tabloid. Okay. So more of you have heard of it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you have an opinion on the quality of what's reported or an opinion of Daily Mail, other than what you've identified? Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Almost to the end.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You will hear some diametrically opposing interpretations of evidence and testimony, with one side sometimes emphatically insisting their interpretation of the evidence or the testimony is correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do any of you believe that you will not be able to exercise your own judgment, common sense and memory, and that you will instead rely on counsel's interpretations on behalf of his or her client? In other words, can you look beyond what the lawyers are insisting the evidence is and say, no, I know what I heard and what I saw and make a fair determination?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have covered several topics and issues that are likely to come up through this trial. We all carry our own beliefs, biases and opinions based on the many experiences in our unique lives. The Court's questions, Ms. Vasquez's questions, and my questions have hopefully caused you to think about whether any of the topic and areas that are arising may influence you because of your life experiences, prejudices and biases, such that after thinking about all of this, you think you may have trouble viewing this case completely, fairly, and impartially.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Have any of you come to that conclusion at this point, that maybe you might have a problem deciding, now that you've heard as much as you have heard?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So all of you think, at this point, you can keep an open mind and make your decisions? That's great.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there any reason, after listening to everything I've talked about, that you believe that may prevent you from being completely fair and impartial, anything?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is there anyone here that believes they would have difficulty or any reason they could not find a verdict in favor of Amber Heard and award her substantial damages if, and only if, the evidence supports such a finding and award?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you all very much. We very much appreciate it.
THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: One thing. 21, Your Honor, she has a current temporary restraining order against her boyfriend here in Fairfax, and I know it's the Court's discretion, but I would ask that she be struck for cause just because I think these allegations, it's not fair for her to sit here for weeks that could be really traumatic.
THE COURT: I asked her specifically if she could be fair and open, and she said she could.
MS. VASQUEZ: I know.
THE COURT: She wasn't even sure she had a protective order. I'm not even sure she had a protective order.
MS. VASQUEZ: But it happened in the last year or two.
THE COURT: I'm not going to do it. She said she could be fair and impartial, and she said she wouldn't be triggered or anything.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Are the attorneys satisfied with the composition of the jury panel?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we're getting closer. At this time, what will happen is there are 21 of you on the jury panel right now, and we have to get that down to 11. What will happen now is the lawyers will just exercise their own strikes and they'll go back and forth until we get you down to that 11 people, okay? Don't take it personally if you don't get on the jury, and don't jump up and down if you don't get on the jury, either way.
THE COURT: But what I'm going to do now is to save some time, I'm going to pretend you're all on the jury and I'm going to go ahead and give you some preliminary instructions so you'll understand how the case is going to go and what kind of logistics we're going to have. Okay? All right.
THE COURT: So, what's going to happen, the case will be presented in the following order: First, the plaintiff's attorney may make an opening statement outlining the plaintiff's case. The defendant's attorney may also make an opening statement outlining the defense's case. In their opening statements, the lawyers will tell you what they expect the evidence to be. This should help you understand the evidence as it is presented later through the witnesses and make you aware of any conflicts or differences that might arise in the testimony.
THE COURT: What the lawyers say in their opening statements is not evidence, and you must not consider it as evidence. Neither attorney is required to make an opening statement.
THE COURT: After opening statements, the plaintiff will introduce evidence. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the defendant has the right to introduce evidence. And when the defendant rests, the plaintiff may introduce rebuttal evidence. Since there's a counterclaim in this case, the defendant, then, has the right to introduce rebuttal evidence after that. Okay?
THE COURT: At the conclusion of all the evidence, I will give you further instructions of law, after which the lawyers will make their closing arguments. In the closing arguments, the lawyers refer to the testimony and other evidence that you have heard, but here again, what the lawyers say in their closing arguments is not evidence itself. Their statements are only their recollection of what the evidence in the case was, and it is your collective recollection, as seven jurors, to what the evidence in the case was which should govern your deliberation.
THE COURT: After closing arguments, you will retire, select a presiding juror, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. You must not be influenced, in any degree, by any personal feeling of sympathy for or bias against any party to this suit, for each party is entitled to the same fair and impartial consideration. The law applicable to this suit is given to you in these instructions and in other instructions that I'll give you at the conclusion of all the evidence. It is your duty as jurors and part of your oath as jurors that you will follow all such instructions.
THE COURT: It's also your duty to determine the facts of this case from the evidence and the reasonable inferences arising from the evidence, but in doing so, you must not engage in guesswork or speculation. The evidence that you are to consider consists of testimony of witnesses and any exhibits entered into evidence. The admission of evidence in court is governed by Rules of Evidence that has been developed over the years. The purpose of the Rules of Evidence is to protect the fairness and accuracy of the fact-finding process in which you are engaged. From time to time during the trial, it may be the duty of an attorney to object to evidence as being offered. Please don't hold it against the attorney making the objection. He or she is not trying to hide anything from you, instead, he or she is simply trying to see to it that the case is conducted in accordance with the Rules of Evidence.
THE COURT: It's my duty, as the judge, to rule on these objections and determine whether you can consider certain evidence; therefore, you must not consider any evidence to which I sustain an objection or which I direct you to disregard or I order to have stricken from the record.
THE COURT: Okay?
THE COURT: It's important to keep in mind that no statement or ruling or remark or gesture that I make during the trial is intended to indicate to you the opinions -- my opinion of the facts of the case. It doesn't matter what I think about the facts of this case. You are to determine the facts of the case, yourself, and in this determination, you alone decide on the believability of the evidence and its weight and its value.
THE COURT: Great deal of the evidence that you will hear in this case will be in the form of testimony of witnesses, whether live witnesses, remote witnesses or by deposition, video deposition of witnesses, and taking into account the weight and value that you choose to give the testimony of any witness, you must consider the appearance, attitude and behavior of the witness, the interest of the witness in the outcome of the suit, the relation of the witness to any party in this suit, the inclination of the witness to speak truthfully or not, the probability or improbability of the witness' testimony, and all other facts and circumstances in evidence. In short, you may give the testimony of any witness just such weight of any value that you determine the testimony is entitled to receive.
THE COURT: You must decide this case based solely on the evidence presented here within the four wall of the courtroom. This means that during the trial, you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the legal or factual issues in the case, the individuals or corporations involved in the case, you are not permitted to search the Internet, visit websites, consult dictionaries, or reference materials or use any other tool to obtain any information of this case or help resolve the issues of this case. Do not try to find out any information from any source outside the confines of this courtroom.
THE COURT: Until the case is submitted to you for deliberation, you must not discuss this case with anyone, that includes your fellow jurors. After you retire to deliberate, you may discuss the case only with your fellow jurors; however, those discussions could occur only in the jury room and only when all members of the jury are present. You are not to discuss this case with anyone else until your jury service as ended. This prohibition of discussions includes the use of any technology used to communicate with anybody, such as telephone calls, text messages, email, chat rooms, or any posts to social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram or any other websites or any other updates.
THE COURT: If anyone asks you about your jury service while the case is pending, you can tell them that you are in. a .civil trial, but you cannot have any discussions about that case, and you cannot hear anything that they want to say about io this case in particular.
THE COURT: Okay?
THE COURT: So it's very important that you instruct everybody that you come in contact that they cannot discuss this case with you at any time. So keep an open mind, do not decide any issue in this case until it's submitted to you for your deliberations at the conclusion of all the evidence and· after you received the completion instructions of law that I'll give you at the end of this case.
THE COURT: If you would like to take notes during this trial, you may do so. On the other hand, you're not required to take notes. Each of you should make your own decision about this. If you do decide to take notes, be careful not to get so involved in the note-taking process that you become distracted from the ongoing proceedings. Your notes should be used only as an aid to your memory. You should not give your notes precedence over your independent recollection of the evidence. Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your independent recollection of what the evidence of the case was, and you should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.
THE COURT: We do have a court reporter making a record of this trial We will not have written transcripts of the record available for you to use in reaching your decision in this case. In addition, no testimony will be read back to you during deliberations, so please keep that in mind when deciding whether or not you want to take any notes. The notes will not become part of the case record and will be destroyed at the end of the case. If you do decide to take notes, we'll be starting tomorrow with opening statements, but if you do decide to take notes, you're going to be given legal pads. I will just ask that you flip over the first page, maybe put your name on the first page, flip it over and start take notes on the second page so you can cover them up during breaks. And in the evening, at the evening, they will be collected up and they'll be stored securely. Jamie, my court clerk, will take care of that. And they'll be given back to you for the next day, for the next day's service. So, again, that's your decision whether or not you want to take notes.
THE COURT: We generally take a break midmorning, around 11:15 or 11:30. We'll take lunch, usually, from 1 to 2, based on how things are going. We'll take an afternoon break at 3:15 or 3:30 and then we'll conclude court each day by 5:00 p.m. But today, we'll conclude court after we have paneled the jury, okay?
THE COURT: If you want to bring your -- in the jury assembly room, there's places where you can bring your lunch, if you'd like to bring your lunch. We only have one cafeteria in the building, and with only one hour, it's hard to leave campus to go anywhere else to get lunch; so we have a refrigerator and microwaves available to you if you want to bring your lunch in as well.
THE COURT: I'd like to discuss a little bit about alternates. We're going to have 11 empaneled as a jury, and as I said earlier, when it comes to deliberations, only 7 will be deliberating. Because of the length of the case, we have four alternate jurors that are going to be picked. You're not going to know who the alternate jurors are, alright? So you're going to hear all the evidence, you're going to hear all the jury instructions, you're going to hear closing arguments. And then after closing arguments, prior to deliberation, I'll be excusing four
THE COURT: Jurors at that time and only seven will be going into deliberations, okay?
THE COURT: What will happen is after we empanel a jury, we will randomly, I and my clerk, will randomly select, at random, four jurors names that are empaneled in the 11 and we will put them in an envelope, so you won't know who those jurors are going to be until the very end. So I would like to bring that up now because some weeks from now, some of you going to be very upset with me, and I just want to just remind you that nothing was in vein and we are having these alternates, so I just wanted to be very upfront with you about the alternates, that we do have four alternates coming in, okay?
THE COURT: All right. So we'll just wait for them to make their strikes. If you need to stand up and stretch a little bit, feel free to do so, just don't leave your seats, okay?
THE COURT: Just give them a few minutes to conclude their strikes.
THE COURT: Do the attorneys have any issues with the strikes? Any issues with the strikes?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When I call your number please have a seat in the back of the courtroom 31,28,23,21,20, 19, 18, 12, 11,and 2.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please answer yes when !call your numbers.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: JUROR NUMBER 6; Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: 16.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: Is this the jury you selected? I just want to make sure.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
COURT CLERK: For those jurors that just answered yes, please, stand and raise your right hand and be sworn.
COURT CLERK: Will the remaining jurors, please, report back to the jury assembly room here on the fifth floor.
THE COURT: Okay. If I can have Number 15 and 16 go ahead and join the other jurors in the jury box Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome. What we're going to do now is we're going to go ahead and excuse you for the day. It's important that you're here a little earlier, we start at 10:00 tomorrow, but the deputy will take you back to the jury room and he'll talk to you a little bit before I discharge you today so you'll know what to do tomorrow what's to be expected of you. In addition, tomorrow when you come in, I think we're going to leave the three seats at the end empty, if you all could file in to the other 12 seats. Like I said before, once you pick a seat, it's.
THE COURT: Yours for the duration. We'll keep you there just to make things easier. Anything you need, make sure you let Deputy (indiscernible) know what you need. My court clerk is Jamie, my law clerk is Sammie. So we'll all be here with you on the duration, so anything you need, make sure you let us know, okay? We want to make this as comfortable or you as possible.
THE COURT: So what I'm going to do, before I discharge you, I'm going to give you the same instructions that I gave you earlier today. Actually, I'm probably going to.give this instruction to you every day, so by the end of this trial, you'll probably be able to recite it back to me, but I'm going to go ahead and give it to you, again, today so we understand. Since there is media coverage in this case, I want to make it very important to you that you abide by this instruction, okay?
THE COURT: So just as a reminder, the Court instructs you as to the following: You are not read anything about this case. You are not to watch anything about the case. You are not to listen to anything about this case. This applies to television, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, and any online sites. Further, you're not to read, watch, or listening to anything about the case on any social networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or similar sites.
THE COURT: In addition, you must not communicate with anyone about the case, whether in person, over the phone, by email, text or instant messaging, or by any other electronic or nonelectronic means. This includes your friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances, and strangers. I also instruct you that you cannot do any research or make inquiries about this case, whether online or by any other means.
THE COURT: For example, you cannot look up information on the Internet that's related to this case or related to the persons involved in the case, nor may you consult dictionaries or other reference materials. What you learn about this case is limited to what you learn in the four walls of this courtroom while the proceedings are underway. You also may not communicate about this case or the persons involved in the case with any fellow juror or potential jurors until you have been authorized to engage in deliberation.
THE COURT: If at any time you inadvertently see, hear, or read anything about this case or the persons involved in this case or someone says something to you about the case, you are to promptly advise a deputy sheriff, who will bring it to my attention and decide how to proceed, and you must not share any communication or information you acquire with any fellow juror.
THE COURT: During the course of these proceedings, you may find yourself in the elevator, the restroom, the hallway or cafeteria, in line with individuals associated with the case. The attorneys and litigants know that they cannot talk to you. Again, they're not being unfriendly, rather they are prohibited from talking to you, so, please, do the same. As for others, if someone speaks to you about the case, remove yourself from that encounter and, again, report it to one of the deputy sheriffs.
THE COURT: Again, please remove any automatic notifications on your cell phones, iPads or computers that pop up automatically with news stories. Just make sure you've disabled all of those from any of your accounts. And we will go forward from there, okay?
THE COURT: THE COURT": "Just do not discuss the case with anybody and, please, don't let them discuss it with you. That's the thing, okay?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Can you state that you're on the case?
THE COURT: You can state that you're on this particular case. Just because there's so much news media, I don't want somebody to inadvertently start talking to you about this case and they don't realize you're on this case. So, you can let them know that you're on this specific case, but you cannot talk to them and you don't want to hear anything about it. So, you need to live in that vacuum for the next several weeks, okay?
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Anything else at this time?
THE COURT: You will be excused to the jury room, and deputies will be there in a moment to talk to you about logistics, okay?
THE COURT: THE COURT": "You can have a seat for a moment. We're just going to stop the feed from the overflow courtroom, but IT says .they need one minute to do that, so we are going to wait until we get the okay, and then go into our other matters.
THE COURT: Would anybody want a break for a few minutes? We can do that while we are waiting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Let's go ahead and take. a ten-minute break.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. So let's go ahead pick our alternates. Now we are off in the other courtroom Let's just do that.
THE COURT: Yes, the number.
COURT CLERK: 10, 15, 3, and 14.
THE COURT: THE COURT": "Okay. Got that, 10, 15, 3, and 14. Those are the alternates. We're going to put their numbers in an envelope and they'll just stay in the envelope until the end of the case, okay? All right.
THE COURT: Okay. So where are we with the Motion in Limine?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, unfortunately, there's a couple of things on each of them And if I could hand up -- we have a redline and then a clean of ours. Starting with the --
MR. MONIZ: Your Honor, if I can briefly just hand up.
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Moniz.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Moniz.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The first one was the Depp motions, the second was the Heard motions. I think Depp's might be easier to start with.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So we can go through and if you can take the second one with the redline, that's what's left that we're still disagreeing about.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The first of those is the U.K. judgment, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Our clear understanding of Your Honor's ruling was that if they open the door by claiming damages because the U.K. judgment is our defense to, you weren't harmed by the op-ed, you were banned by all these other things, including the fact that there's a judgment against you from the U.K. So we have in here, we have, we agree that you said it's granted as to liability. But you said denied in part to the extent Mr. Depp opens the door by claiming damages. Then you also said, in which case the U.K.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Judgment may be admissible as determined during trial And then you said that we can't refer to it in our opening statements. We, first, have to approach the bench, and the Court may have appropriate limiting instructions for the jury, if warranted.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What they want to put in there is only if he relies on the U.K. judgment at trial which makes no sense. He's not going to bring you the ? U.K. judgment. That's not how he opens the door. He opens the door saying, yes, I've been terribly damaged, my career has been destroyed as a result of thus, and then we can come up and we can defend and say this is one of the causes of the damages you have. So, that's the difference. That redline that you see in front of you, Your Honor, is the differences between what we propose and then what they're proposing.
THE COURT: Okay. Why don't we just do one at a time.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moniz.
MR. MONIZ: Thank you, Your Honor. I apologize, I overly optimistic on Friday when I said --
THE COURT: You really promised me something. You did not deliver.
MR. MONIZ: Not intentionally, Your Honor. So I think that this is pretty straightforward here. What Ms. Heard is arguing, essentially, is that if Ms. Heard -- Mr. Depp claims any damages at all, that the door is, therefore, opened, which really doesn't make any sense. There had to be a nexus between the damages claimed and the U.K. judgment. That was the Court's clear ruling.
MR. MONIZ: I'll read from the Court's ruling from the transcript. "As to Motion in Limine Number 1, I'm going to grant in part and grant it as to the case-in-chief. If plaintiff relies on the U.K. judgment then the U.K. judgment is admissible for damages issues only. If plaintiff opens the door to testimony regarding the U.K. judgment, then the U.K. judgment will be admissible as decided during the trial. If you think they've opened the door, please approach the bench first before you want to discuss that. The U.K. judgment cannot be referred to in opening statements."
MR. MONIZ: All it's staying is, it's fine to say that if we open the door, they can go there, following approaching the bench. But the order should not say that if we have any damages at all, the door is automatically open, which is essentially what their order says.
MR. MONIZ: And that's it.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor clarified that even later, at page 188, arid said "I think I've ruled on this, but just make sure it's clear." And what Your Honor has indicated -- let's see where the place is. In any event, Your Honor clarified that we do, our experts are going to say that his damages are associated with the U.K. judgment, among other things, they've got a whole list of things. U.K. judgment is one of them We have a nexus and we understand that we have to establish that.
THE COURT: So that's not a problem Later on, we can approach about that and we can see what's going on with that. I think what I ruled on is exactly what Mr. Moniz said. I mean, that's what I have in my notes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But, yeah, it's true p that we have to have a nexus, I agree. What they wrote this theirs is that they have to open the door to the U.K. judgment. They're never going to the open the door to U.K. judgment, so they have language in there that isn't correct.
THE COURT: That's what I said.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, no. But then Your Honor cleared it up, is my point. I'm going to grant in part -- you say "If you think they have opened the door, please, approach the bench first before we want to discuss it."
THE COURT: Right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And that's right.
THE COURT: Think that's what's in his order.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's not, Your Honor. What they're saying is if Mr. Depp relies on the U.K. judgment at trial, then the U.K. judgment is admissible for damages issues only. He's not going to rely on the U.K. judgment. That's the sentence we took off.
THE COURT: What I said is if plaintiff opens the door to testimony regarding the U.K. judgment, it will be admissible --
MS. BREDEHOFT: To testimony. He'.s got--
THE COURT: Do you want to change it to testimony?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, yes.
MR. MONIZ: I'm not sure we need to go there, Your Honor. If plaintiff opens the door, she can argue at trial whether we opened the door, but it shouldn't say we're claiming any sort of damages.
THE COURT: No, she didn't say that. She just --
MS. BREDEHOFT: What we have is if Mr. Depp relies on the U.K. judgment at trial, then the U.K. judgment is admissible for damages issues. He's not going to rely to the U.K. judgment at trial.
MR. MONIZ: Your Honor, I'm fine with striking that language out as long as we also strike out the language "by claiming damages."
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think that's fine.
THE COURT: All right. We'll all in agreement with that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: Move to the next one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Next one, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Still on Depp's?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: What number?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 6, page 2, bottom, if we look at the redline.
THE COURT: Number 6.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think what the plaintiff has tried to do here is try to merge the Russian with the bot. And Your Honor clearly kept out and we said we're not claiming Russian bots, and Your Honor ruled that way. But we do have testimony and we told Your Honor, during the Motion in Limine, we had testimony about the bots, and Your Honor said we've got to link it up but that's not excluded. So what we- specifically, if it has bot campaign, has specifically Russian connections. It's not all bots, just the Russian bot.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's the only distinction, is that Your Honor ruled on the Russian, which we can see there.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Moniz.
MR. MONIZ: Yeah, here, again, Your Honor, obviously we're going to be guided by Your Honor's interpretation of your order because you certainly know it better than we do. But I'm just basing our order on the transcript. Again, if we go to the transcript, what Your Honor said on the record was all right -- and I'm quoting. "What I'll do is I'll grant it in part as far as the Russian bot. That's not going to be testified to. I'm going to deny the social media," and you go on to address the other parts of the motion.
MR. MONIZ: My interpretation of that, Your Honor, was that you were including the bots, the Russian bots, which is the allegation, the Russian bots, which is a different (indiscernible). It has no nexus to the case at issue. So that's our interpretation of the order, and I think that's on the transcript.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Depp.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It is the Russian. I think we're just -- it's a matter of semantics between the two of us on the language, and then we added, Your Honor, what Your Honor said specifically, "Or there is nexus shown so as to prove damages or to prove malice with other social media posts were connected to those defamatory statements," and we've added that, that is in our redline. That's at page 52, Your Honor, lines 7 through 9 of the transcript, what Your Honor said.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to adding that?
MR. MONIZ: I'm son-y, can you re-read that?
THE COURT: It's at the top of page 3 that they have in their redline.
MR. MONIZ: Oh, yeah. That's fine. I think that tracks Your Honor's order. The difference of opinion is really just our position is that based on Your Honor's ruling, the Russian bot campaign is out and they're basically saying there was a bot campaign, but you can't mention Russia. I think that's the confusion.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We agree that we're not bringing up evidence of the Russian bot campaign.
THE COURT: The Motion in Limine said we're not doing Russian bots, so I granted in part to the Russian bots.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The key is Russian bots.
MR. MONIZ: Well, I'm confused why she says the key is Russian. Is she still arguing bots?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
MR. MONIZ: That's the point of confusion, Your Honor. The allegation is Russian bots. If Russian bots are out, that means we're not talking about bots.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We have testimony about bots. We don't not testimony about Russian bots.
THE COURT: I'm not sure what testimony is going to come out, what foundation is going to be need for that, but if we can just put the Russian bots for now, and as it says on page 3, if you don't have any objection.
MR. MONIZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good. We're moving on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The next one is -- that's -- that takes care of the Depp one.
THE COURT: Depp one is done.
MS. BREDEHOFT: On to Heard.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this one --
THE COURT: You have redlines for this as well.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right, Your Honor. This one, this is the situation where we have, Your Honor, the issue of the arrest in 2009, the customs declaration.
THE COURT: Which Motion in Limine?
MS. BREDEHOFT: This is on the second one, You Honor.
THE COURT: Number 2?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. If Your Honor's looking at the redline of it, you'll see the distinctions. We're indicating that they must -- they can't -- think they've agreed to some of our languages that we have, and they must, first, approach the bench before raising any of the following issues in the presence of the jury. We understood that that's what Your Honor was saying, and these are the ones that, Your Honor may recall, we moved for reconsideration. Ms.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Heard's arrest at the Seattle Tacoma airport in King County Washington in 2009, the customs declaration in 2015, the letter to the United States Immigration Services regarding Samantha McMillan in 2014, and then the trial exhibits that are associated with it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And we also have that they are prohibited from mentioning these in their opening statement. They've taken that out. We clearly understood that's what Your Honor was saying. I have to make a determination on these whether there's a, I think the first part of the determination was whether they were authentic or -- I can't remember the language -- from 2006.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But Your Honor said, first of all, that you had to make a determination if it was reliable, and then you would make rulings after that. Our position on those, Your Honor, there's so prejudicial to Ms. Heard, the moment they come in, they can't be taken back, and, you know, obviously, we argue pretty substantially on Rule 2:406, 608 on that, 608, on what's impermissible and what's not, and 609, which was the -- you can't introduce anything that's arrest, it has to be a conviction, a conviction and with moral turpitude.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And the exception to that, they were arguing, was the perjury, Your Honor, which was -- and none of these are perjury charges, but even then, that was a different code section, and that the witnesses, not the parties.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So the arrests, first of all, the arrest in Seattle, she was not charged with it, she was charged and it was dropped, and it was in 2009. So we don't have a criminal conviction, a felony conviction, or a crime involving crimes of moral turpitude.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The second_ thing is, we have a customs declaration.
THE COURT: I'm not rearguing this --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay,
THE COURT: I've already done this and I've already denied the reconsideration. We're past that. What did I say on the record? Whatever I said is what goes in the order.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right. And what Your Honor said was that you had to m*e a determination first on -- I need some help here because I was working on this and you were working on that. My apologies.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor said, on one part of it, they can't raise it, and then- but it wasn't clear on the record that you said for all of them. What is --
THE COURT: If I remember correctly, some of them, they said they weren't going to mention.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think that's right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So why don't I hear from Mr. Moniz on that. He seems to have the transcript.
MR. MONIZ: Well, I should have had the transcript, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MONIZ: But this is a little bit of a tempest in a teapot, honestly, on this one. We're not planning on mentioning these things in opening arguments, but the thing here about this order is really that -- and this is going to be a running theme throughout this conversation, that there are a bunch of things in Ms. Heard's proposed order that are not in the transcript. The language she wants to include here, I mean, I think in an abundance of caution, we probably very well might approach the bench before getting into some of these things. That seems appropriate, but the Court did not, in the record, require it, so to the extent the Court did not make that an order in the transcript, I certainly haven't been able to find that. I don't think it's appropriate to approve in the order.
MR. MONIZ: If Ms. Bredehoft can show the language, where the Court included this language in the . transcript, that would be a different story, but I haven't been able to find that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The language I was trying to find, Your Honor, you said the other one, I just don't know.how the evidence is going to play out at this time . The evidence will be subject to all relevance, foundation, other objections at trial, is what Your Honor said. They're not going to open it if they're not going to say in opening that couched tremendously, but I think they still have to approach because I think they're so prejudicial.
THE COURT: I don't know about approach. That wasn't in my order. It's not going to be part of opening statements, though; is that correct?
THE COURT: Then we can go from there during trial.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is not going to be part of this? It would be those specific ones?
THE COURT: That's correct.
MR. MONIZ: I can confirm, Your Honor, we're not making any --
THE COURT: They're not making any of those seven that were outlined in that Motion in Limine, will not be addressed in opening statements.
THE COURT: Okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So we can move on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 6.
THE COURT: Number 6.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So this one is the approaching the bench with respect to the photographs in the media and creating new images, references to Ms. Heard's stint as an exotic dancer before meeting Mr. Depp, and an implication of reference to Ms. Heard having, at one time, worked as an escort. They agreed with that language, but the Court says, specifically, "I'll grant as to the pictures of the reference to escort/dancer evidence in the case-in-chief. Again, if it's going to feel like you can use it in rebuttal, please, approach before that is done or a question is asked." That's the language we have in here, and that's what they're objecting to.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's page 182, Your Honor.
MR. MONIZ: And our problem with that, Your Honor, that's fine as far as it goes, but she's trying to apply that to the parts of the motions that were denied.
THE COURT: Denied the videoed relationships.
MR. MONIZ: And the Court, again, just-- Your Honor did not order that, as to the parts we're denying, so it shouldn't be in the order if it was ordered at the hearing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We don't have that as part of it, Your Honor. That's denied down below, if you look at our redline.
MR. MONIZ: Unless I'm looking at a different redline, I'm reading from your order, Ms. Bredehoft. if Mr. Depp seeks to introduce any evidence, elicit testimony or ask any questions regarding such topics from those granted or denied at trial, he must, first, approach the bench and these topics cannot be referenced in Mr. Depp's opening statement. That was not ordered as to the items that were denied. Unless I'm looking at a different -- no, I'm looking at the same one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have these three.
MR. MONIZ: But you have the language "as to those granted or denied," which applies, then, to the following section.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, just.--
MR. MONIZ: Strike out "denied," and we're in agreement.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. We'll take g out denied.
THE COURT: Take out denied. All right.
THE COURT: Moving on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Your Honor, I'm going to pass this one-off to Mr. Murphy. I should have at the beginning.
MR. MURPHY: Next one is 10G, this is on Mr. Neumeister, Your Honor. So, this is bottom of page 4, top of page 5.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MURPHY: I expect the opposition argument is that this is about semantics, but it's not semantics, Your Honor. Ms. Heard, we believe, is tracking Your Honor's ruling. We shall have the right to file a motion to exclude Mr. Neumeister, which the Court shall rule on before he testifies. Mr. Depp seeks language that any objection -- I'm not really sure what that means. If by that they mean they can file a motion that the Court will rule on, why won't they agree with our language? If they mean something different, I would like to hear what that is so I can properly address it. The point is, we're not going to ambush the Court with 10 minutes of oral arguments on why Mr. Neumeister should be excluded. It should be handled in a brief that we will follow the Court's direction on when that's filed and when that's heard. That's Ms. Beard's only point here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MONIZ: And, again, Your Honor, the same basic point as before, the Court did not specifically state, on the record, that Ms. Heard was authorized to file a motion. Obviously, not including that language in this order does not, in any way, preclude Ms. Heard from doing so.
THE COURT: File a motion, yes.
MR. MONIZ: I don't think the language is necessary or appropriate. I mean, our suggested language, I think, more accurately tracks the transcript, where Your Honor indicated that any objection based on Crane ought to be addressed prior to the testimony. That's what's in our order. I think that gets to the same point without suggesting such an order has been specifically authorized by the Court, which, again, did not happen at the hearing.
MR. MURPHY: 30-second response, Your Honor. Op. page 226, Your Honor said if it's a Crane issue. I will admit Your Honor did not say you can file a written brief, but I'm unaware how you bring a Crane issue before the Court, live - with an objection in the middle of trial, it's typically handled during a briefing in this court. That's all we're requesting here.
THE COURT: All right. We'll put it in the language as you can file a motion. I mean, that's how it will be done. I'm not sure it's needed, but if you want it in there, that's fine.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Next one.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honor, the next one, this is a -- on Dr. Curry, Your Honor, 10E, so right below that. Ms. Bredehoft argued this one, Your Honor, and there's a back-and-forth where, on page 231 and 232, Your Honor was asking "What about emotional distress? Opinions about emotional distress with the Depp abuse, Heard (indiscernible) Depp. That's not something she is going to opine to, correct? And Mr. Chew said "I don't mean to interrupt," and he said "wasn't it about the three statements?" In your quote, Your Honor said "Emotional distress is what she referenced." Then Mr. Chew said, with a question mark, "Relating to the three statements?" And Your Honor -- and then Ms. Bredehoft said the proposed order was page 5.
MR. MURPHY: This is Ms. Beard's initial proposed order.
MR. MURPHY: Our understanding of that ruling, Your Honor, is Dr. Curry cannot testify at trial whether Ms. Heard suffered any emotional distress as a result of the alleged defamatory statements, period, not at issue in her counterclaim. I don't know exactly what they mean by that. I think what they mean by that is three statements are going to trial so all I can glean from that is they intend to have Dr. Curry testify about emotional distress or lack of emotional distress about the counterclaims statements that are not going to trial, which we do not believe is in accordance with Your Honor's ruling. If that's not what they're saying, I would like to hear what they're saying, but that's my interpretation of it, and I don't believe that's correct.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. MONIZ: Your Honor, I believe the transcript, again, is clear, Your Honor. It was an agreement of counsel, I believe, on the record. It was very clear that it was limited specifically to the three counterclaim statements. That's clearly how it was reflected in the transcript. I'm not sure what the issue here is, honestly. I think it's clear Dr. Curry, the scope of Dr. Curry's testimony has already been outlined. This has already been briefed. And the transcript clearly reflects that the issue here is just the counterclaim statements.
MR. MONIZ: That was what was stated on the record, and I have (indiscernible).
MR. MURPHY: Your Honor, Ms. Bredehoft's argument on page 227 of the transcript is Dr. Curry did not address if the defamatory statements made by Adam Waldman caused any emotional distress to Ms. Heard. So, I do not believe Dr. Curry opined to emotional distress or lack of emotional distress for other counterclaim statements that are going to trial so, therefore, it would be undisclosed testimony. So why should Dr. Curry be able to opine to an expert opinion that that was not previously disclosed, is essentially the point here?
MR. MONIZ: The order tracks an issue, what we were talking about with the counterclaim statement. I'm not sure what the problem is, honestly.
THE COURT: All right. So let's just strike out "at issue on the counterclaim." We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, if we come to it, for some other reason, okay?
MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ne>,.i one. Number 12.
MR. MURPHY: Number 12, this one should be pretty straightforward, Your Honor. We added "otherwise denied at this time," and that Dr. Curry may testify regarding limitations of her evaluation subject to relevance, foundation, and other objections at trial.
MR. MURPHY: That, to me, I don't know what the issue is with that. It's denied at this time, and subject to trial objections. So I don't understand what the issue is on that one. If it's not explicitly stated, Your Honor stated, after probably 95 percent of the limine rulings that were denied subject to relevance objections and other objections at trial, so I don't see the harm in adding that in here just to prevent a claim that, oh, this is in, period, regardless of what happens at trial.
MR. MONIZ: I think I can save us some time here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'd appreciate that.
MR. MONIZ: We've been exchanging redlines. This is a change that probably should have been accepted. I don't think that's a problem.
THE COURT: All right. That's fine.
MR. MURPHY: Moving right along, Your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: It looks like a lot of red, but it's actually one argument that can be argued in 30 seconds, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Don't promise me things like that.
MR. MURPHY: I'm timing myself, Your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: That this is the list Ms. Heard included and Your Honor just said, I don't know what's going to come in at trial, we'll have to see what happens. This is about discovery orders, pleadings, references to Court rulings, references to responsive pleadings. All these things that we don't believe are evidence. We understand Your Honor denied the motion at the time, but the point of the list being in there, Your Honor, is the predicate language that Mr. Depp or Ms. Heard need to seek permission from the Court outside the presence of the jury before raising these matters at trial, and nor is counsel to engage in any grandstanding. That was a quote from Your Honor in the ruling.
THE COURT: I think that approached the bench.
MR. MURPHY: And if Your Honor wanted to add approach the bench, we'd have no issue with that.
MR. MURPHY: The point is, these matters cannot be stated in front of the jury without Your Honor having made a threshold determination of whatever the specific issue is; at whatever point in trial this comes up.
MR. MONIZ: And, again, Your Honor, it's a comparatively small point, and if the Court prefers that we approach the bench, we obviously can. I don't believe that's actually reflected in the order. I also don't believe it's necessary. There's nothing inherently prejudicial about offering a pleading into evidence that requires that we approach the bench. It's perfectly reasonable to simply make the objection on the record and go from there. That's obviously subject to the Court's preference. If you feel it necessary for us to approach the bench, we obviously will, but that wasn't in the order.
MR. MONIZ: As to grandstanding, we generally do our best not to grandstand. If Your Honor wants to rule that in the order, we certainly can, but if it wasn't addressed in the Motion in Limine, we didn't think it was necessary.
THE COURT: I have it in my notes, I may not have said it at that time, but approaching the bench, let's just put it in there. That's fine.
MR. MURPHY: Just so the record is clear, when you say keep that in there, the redline from Ms. Heard is -- I just want to make sure I understand.
THE COURT: You didn't have any 284 objection to the listing of the particular d 2
MR. MONIZ: Again, Your Honor, I don't think it's necessarily necessary for us to approach the bench before offering it into evidence. The complaint or the answer or to the extent, I mean, it's not inherently prejudicial. There's no bell that can't be unrung if the jury hears the word (indiscernible) in a complaint or the evidence, they're free to object. I don't understand why it's necessary. If it's particularly important to them and Your Honor agrees with them, then I suppose that's fine, but I really don't think it's necessary.
MR. MURPHY: Ten seconds, Your Honor. I would say they are inherently prejudicial --
THE COURT: When you say approach the bench, I think Ins question was, do you mind listing under each one of them?
MR. MONIZ: If Your Honor feels that it's necessary for us to approach the bench before -- well, I mean, I do have some problems with the language, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MONIZ: Number 3, for example, references to including prohibiting counsel's statement and questions, such as for the first time disclosed blank at a deposition or for the first time disclosed blank at a certain written discovery response. I don't know that it's necessarily appropriate for us to have to break up the stream of questioning to approach Your Honor to ask a question that, really, simply relates to when a particular allegation was disclosed.
THE COURT: As Your Honor knows, it's one of the major points that we made. Ms. Heard's story evolved over time, the new allegations pop up here and there at particularly convenient moments. That's going to be a point that's made through the course of the trial. It seems odd and cumbersome, and unreasonably so, for us to have to approach the bench to ask that question. All sorts of questions are going to be posed that are going to be very irritating to witnesses on both sides.
THE COURT: Other than Number 3, any issues with the other ones?
THE COURT: L\MR; MONIZ: I apologize, Your Honor. If I could just have ten seconds
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. MONIZ: I think most of the rest of . it is fine, Your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: (Indiscernible) number 3, Your Honor. So here's the issue, Your Honor: He's talking about emails, text messages, when Ms. Heard told this person or that person or didn't tell this person or that person. That's different. That has nothing to do with this. This is either parties' discovery production or discovery responses. That's pulling out a discovery response, why did you first do it in this one? Well, the answer is, it probably wasn't due until then, or something like that. That has nothing to do with the jury. That's just a matter of litigation deadlines.
THE COURT: You're not asking questions of the witnesses in this particular one. It's just--
MR. MURPHY: I don't know what they're going to ask. That's the point, Your Honor. But it's preventing them from saying something like that, about you just disclosed this in this interrogatory. Well, the interrogatory might not have been due until the day it's disclosed.
THE COURT: Well, that's why we have
MS. BREDEHOFT: The next one, Your Honor, I'll deal with; This is number 20, page 8.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: This is the Warner Brothers: This is the lawyer's letter saying, here's what one of our clients would say in a declaration. That's the letter, and then there's the proposed stipulation that was rejected by the other side. I recognize Your Honor has denied it subject to, but we have the other concern that I raised this morning with Your Honor, that the confidential designation of Walter Hamada, who was the corporate designee from Warner Brothers, was released to the press. Warner Brothers alerted both sides on Friday night and is very, very concerned about this. What I put in, Your Honor didn't say, although I think Your Honor meant it, was it can't be referenced in opening statements, and they must approach the bench. Clearly, it's a lawyer's letter saying, here's what a declaration would say. So, it's hearsay, hearsay. Then there's a stipulation that's clearly, all right, here's our way to resolve the discovery dispute.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I understand Your Honor's ruling and I respect it, regarding the motion to reconsider, Your Honor denied it, but all I'm asking, because it was so, so incredibly prejudicial that it not be referenced in opening and that they have to approach the bench.
MR. MONIZ: So, again, Your Honor, I don;t think this needs to detain the Court for all that long. I'm not going to address the Walter Hamada issue except to say I think this is already covered by other orders. I mean, the parties have already been instructed by Your Honor, I think, that we're not to make specific references or citations to exhibits. I don't think this is actually our exhibit list. Well, maybe.
MR. MONIZ: But in any. case, we don't have it in our opening statement. But, again, Your Honor did not direct that at the hearing, so it shouldn't be included in the order, but moot point. It's not in--
THE COURT: It's not in the opening statement. So, move on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But can we also -- that they must approach the bench before they try to raise it? It's so prejudicial.
THE COURT: The Motion in Limine 20, only thing I have here, what I think I said on the record was denied, does not fall under the Rule 2:408.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So, let's move on.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. The last one is, I think, more of a matter of semantics. It's the payment of attorneys' fees, and it's page 9.
THE COURT: What number is it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Number 26.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Both of us agreed, if the door's open, that they can question on it. The difference is just in the language that we've got here. If Ms. Heard opens the door at trial as to who is paying the attorneys' fees, Mr. Depp must, first, approach the bench, outside the presence of the jury, to ask Ms. Heard or Mr. Musk, in rebuttal, who's paying attorneys' fees, if any.
MR. MONIZ: Again, Your Honor, I think the only point here, again, is that Your Honor did not require that at the hearing. The ruling was pretty clear. We're entitled to ask Ms. Heard that question if she opens the door, and to the extent Mr. Musk is put on as a witness, we're entitled to ask Ms. Heard and Mr. Musk whether he's paying any of her fees. I mean, that was Your Honor's ruling. There was nothing in there about approaching the bench.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't disagree that the door's open, but I think we have to agree whether the door was opened before. I think Your Honor has to make that threshold determination.
MR. MONIZ: Well, Your Honor, if he's called as a witness, the door's open. I mean, that's Your Honor's ruling.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's not-- if Mr. Musk is called as a witness, that opens the door to ask if he pays --
THE COURT: This is what I have in my notes: Granted although -- the motion was granted, although can be asked of Mr. Musk only for bias. Limited instruction will be given.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: So, I'm not sure where all the other language came from
MS. BREDEHOFT: The other issue -- good thing I have Mr. Murphy. The second issue is the first part, it says who is paying her attorneys' fees. They have hedged to the issue of her attorneys' fees, as opposed to who is paying the attorneys' fees, and the issue is, who is paying the attorneys' fees?
THE COURT: Can we put a "who" in there?
MR. MONIZ: That's fine, Your Honor. I thought it was understood.
THE COURT: Is that it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's it.
THE COURT: Done with Motion in Limines?
THE COURT: Mr. Chew, you look like you really want to get up.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHEW: Number one, Your Honor may recall Ms. Bredehoft raised that in front of the IO jury today. We think that was inappropriate, and we seek the Court's guidance as to those recordings being referenced in opening argument. We think they shouldn't be. They haven't been admitted, so we don't think either party should be allowed to reference, so that's issue one.
MR. CHEW: Issue two is because, by definition, the recordings contain both parties, under the evidentiary rules, neither can introduce the entire tape because it's hearsay as to the other party. Both parties probably will want to use that. So, we seek the Court's guidance as to how we should handle that. It might require a (indiscernible) between the parties, rather than having awkward spliced tapes --
THE COURT: Right.
MR. CHEW: Of our side only producing a tape that has Ms. Heard so we can get it admitted, and Ms. Heard only being able to produce a tape of Mr. Depp because it would be hearsay as to her.
MR. CHEW: So if we could seek the Court's guidance, one, barring either side from referencing the tapes during opening argument, because they have not been admitted, and, two, directing -- giving us some guidance, perhaps we can meet and confer so we can agree, that the entirety of the tapes be admitted rather than to do it in an awkward fashion.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Bredehoft.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, the first question Your Honor had, the claim that Mr. Chew and I had asked these questions. I have the markup here. I know we had an issue here, but my question on the tape recordings were not even objected to by the other side, the tape recordings. So I brought those up after we went through and had our whole -- as Your Honor can see, we both worked, I believe, from Exhibit C of their objections, and on page 10, at the bottom of it, and into page 11, there's no objections to those and those are the --
THE COURT: I don't want to go backwards, but I didn't have it on my list either, but that's fine.
THE COURT: What about now?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So --
THE COURT: Are you going to reference the videotapes, I guess, in opening statements?
MS. BREDEHOFT: The videotapes?
THE COURT: That's what I have. Videos of the recordings is what I have.
THE COURT: Audio tapes, video tapes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm not finding them quoting anything because Your Honor has ruled we can't. We can refer to the things, and we may well refer to audio recordings. I'm happy to do a meet and confer on this one because I agree, I think we have some awkwardness here. We have hearsay exceptions with potentially prior inconsistent statements, things like that are party-opponent admissions. I'm happy to consult with them because I agree with you. There's one audio recording that's five hours long. There's no way we're going to play that, and there are some others that there may be parts that either side.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, I'm happy to confer with them on that, but I don't think that impacts, at all, our openings on -- I'm not sure what's being asked here on.openings.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
MR. CHEW: The audio tapes and the videotapes should not be referenced during the openings. They haven't been admitted, and they may not be. So they're just like any other exhibit that has not been admitted. Because, by definition, half of those tapes are going to be hearsay. So they shouldn't be referenced at all. They're not an exception, there's no exception to the hearsay rule that's applicable. I think it's very important that they not be referenced. They shouldn't have been referenced in voir dire, but as Your Honor says, we're not going to go backwards, but we are concerned about what's happening tomorrow. And if there are any references to the audio tapes and videotapes, that should be excluded.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, that's not a correct statement of anything. That means that we couldn't reference anything for our opening, we'd have to just sit down. We can't say what the testimony is going to be, we can't say what the evidence is going to be? Of course we can say what the testimony and the evidence is, then if it doesn't come in, then they can call us a liar in the closing. But we're able to make reference to the videotape, we're able to make reference to the audio.tapes. As I said, we're not going to specifically quote anything. Your Honor's ruled on that, and we will adhere to that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHEW: Your Honor, I don't see how an audio tape or a videotape is any different from any other exhibit.
THE COURT: Well, I think, in her case, she's going to say the evidence is going to show that you're going to hear allegations through audio tapes and videotapes. If she doesn't deliver, that's something you can bring up in closing, for sure, but I think she can say this is what she expects the evidence can be. So, I'll allow that.
THE COURT: I tl:rink she agrees she's not going to quote from it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. That's the videotape. Anything else on that?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. CHEW: Just in light of the past pro log, if Your Honor could order us to meet and confer on that --
THE COURT: You said you don't have any objection to meet and confer, so you can figure out how that can come in more coherently?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. I tl:rink that's -- I understand.
THE COURT: Do you intend to have these in your case-in-chief in the next week and a half?
THE COURT: So you need to meet and greet relatively soon.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Meet and greet.
THE COURT: I'll hold you to that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Other than that, a few things I wanted to go through.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else, Ms. -Bredehoft?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: Just want to make sure.
THE COURT: Now, did the witness list get exchanged?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What I would like to know, is there any remote witnesses tomorrow, because we have to make sure we_ send you a Webex for it, if necessary?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So, no Webex for tomorrow?
MS. VASQUEZ: No. And if Your Honor would please the Court, we're happy to share whenever we have a remote witness.
THE COURT: If you could just let us know when you have a remote witness, that would help, just so we can get that all taken care of with the IT folks.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And they will be disclosed for the next day too, and I was trying to confer with Mr. Chew. I don't think they're remote either.
THE COURT: Perfect. Friday will be upon us, and I want to make sure that you're doing your homework, sitting down and working on depositions with each other.
THE COURT: Working on it real hard, right?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. We have one down to literally, like, four things for the Court.
THE COURT: That's music to my ears. Great. I just want to make sure that we're progressing on that, so when Friday comes, we can get through a lot of depositions.
THE COURT: I do have a docket Friday at 9 a.m., i moved it to 9 a.m., so it should be done close to 10. So, we can have the whole day, 10 to 5, to do what you need to do on that day, so, let's take advantage of that.
THE COURT: Other than that, I think -- just a reminder, there will be no statements to press or posts on websites or social media. Everybody understands that, right, we're all good with that?
THE COURT: Everybody's got it.
THE COURT: Also, I know we have the security in the back, that was part of the security plan. If you don't want to use the security and you want to come through the front, you're on your own. We're not going to have any extra security for that. I don't have any problems if you want to walk right up and come up right to 5J through there. Just to let you know, this is a courthouse, right, and there's 37 other courtrooms and there's cases going on, child custody cases and criminal cases.
THE COURT: And, so, just a reminder, that there's no posing for pictures, or signing autographs in the courthouse or on the courthouse grounds. Just have to be very respectful of the courthouse and the courthouse grounds. I just want to make sure we get that settled, okay? Everybody agrees with that? All right.
THE COURT: I think that's all I had. Anybody else have anything else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So 10:00 tomorrow. Do you need any of the electronics for tomorrow?
THE COURT: For your opening statements, two hours each, right, two hours and two hours?
MS. BREDEHOFT: We've exchanged demonstrative exhibits, Your Honor, and I think what we're going to do is bring ours up electronically on the screen.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Are you planning on doing that too?
MS. VASQUEZ: Correct.
THE COURT: If you want to come a little early so we make sure all -- the electronics get a little fidgety, so we want to make sure they're all working right, okay?
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: I, JUDITH E. BELLINGER, RPR, CRR, the court reporter before whom the foregoing hearing was taken, do hereby certify that the foregoing excerpt transcript is a true and correct record of the proceedings; that said proceedings were taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction; and that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this case and have no interest, financial or otherwise, in its outcome.
COURT BAILIFF: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 12th day of April, 2022. My Commission Expires: September 30, 2024 ° NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA