Jury Question - Day 25 - Depp v. Heard

The deliberating jury asked whether Question 43's falsity inquiry applied to the op-ed headline or the full article; Judge Azcarate clarified in writing that the headline alone is the statement at issue.

← Day 24

Day 26 →

colloquy Jury Question

COURT BAILIFF: All rise: Please be seated and come to order.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Let me get you copies. We have a question. I only have two copies. So let me just read into the record the question. Basically, in regards to Number C, items 1 and 3, and Number C is the jury instruction on the finding instruction for the online article title?

THE COURT: The question is: "Does question Number 43, if the statement is false, pertain to the headline 'I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath,' or does it contain to the content of the statement, everything written in the op-ed?" So I think the confusion came in this particular one because the statement in question is the title of the op-ed. So I think they're confused as to whether it's the whole op-ed or just the title is the statement. And it's clear that the title is the statement. So I was going to answer to say the title is the statement in question for Number 3. Does that seem appropriate to everybody?

MS. BREDEHOFT: Which they phrased as "headline" as opposed to "title"?

THE COURT: Correct. Because the headline is the alleged defamatory statement.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Right.

THE COURT: So I can say the statement is the headline and not the entire op-ed. Is that what you want me to say?

MR. CHEW: That's fine with us, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CHEW: Thank you.

THE COURT: The statement is the headline not the entire op-ed. All right. I will send that back to them.

MR. ROTTENBORN: And just so we're

MR. ROTTENBORN: And just so we're clear, Your Honor, the wording would be what again?

THE COURT: I can give you the copy of this. It says The statement is the headline, not the entire op-ed." Everybody's --

MS. BREDEHOFT: You know, I'm just -- just give me a second. —

THE COURT: While we're waiting for that. Mr. Chew, I did get your motion. I'm not ignoring you, but I am kind of ignoring you because since the jury has the case now and it's out of my hands, I appreciate your motion but I'm not going to entertain it at this time, okay?

MR. CHEW: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Just can I have one moment, Your Honor, I just want to...

THE COURT: All right. Are we satisfied with that answer?

MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. I will -- we'll make copies of this first. And then I'll get it back to the jury and I'll get it back to you, okay?

MR. CHEW: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right: We'll be in recess, Thank you.

COURT BAILIFF: All rise.

COURT BAILIFF: IN WITNESS WHEREOF; I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 2nd day of June, 2022. My Commission Expires: September 30, 2024 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

[STAGE DIRECTION]: (Recess taken from 3:34 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.) (Whereupon, the trial was recessed at 5:00 p.m. to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 1, 2022.)

colloquy Jury Question

The jury asked whether falsity Question 43 applied to the op-ed headline or the full article; Judge Azcarate clarified it refers to the headline only.

During deliberations the jury asked whether Question 43's falsity inquiry applied to the op-ed headline or the entire article. Judge Azcarate proposed a written clarification that the headline is the statement at issue; all counsel agreed. The response sent to the jury read: "The statement is the headline, not the entire op-ed." The judge also acknowledged a pending motion from Depp's counsel but declined to entertain it while the case was in the jury's hands.

Legal Significance

Narrowed the falsity question to the op-ed headline specifically, directly shaping how the jury evaluated the scope of Depp's primary defamation claim.

Key Moments

Court reconvenes mid-deliberation to address a jury question about Question 43 and the scope of the alleged defamatory statement.
Judge Azcarate reads the jury's question aloud and proposes clarifying that the headline — not the entire op-ed — is the statement at issue; she solicits counsel's agreement.
Both sides agree to the proposed language; Judge Azcarate confirms the written response: "The statement is the headline, not the entire op-ed."
Judge declines to entertain a motion filed by Depp's counsel (Mr. Chew), noting the case is now in the jury's hands.
Final clarification text approved; copies made for the jury and parties before recess.
Court recesses at 3:34 p.m. and adjourns until 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, June 1, 2022.

Key Quotes

"it's clear that the title is the statement"
— Penney Azcarate Judge's threshold determination that narrows the falsity question to the headline alone, not the full op-ed.

"The statement is the headline not the entire op-ed."
— Penney Azcarate The exact written clarification sent back to the deliberating jury.

"since the jury has the case now and it's out of my hands, I appreciate your motion but I'm not going to entertain it at this time, okay?"
— Penney Azcarate Judge explains her policy of not acting on motions once deliberations have begun.

Evidence Referenced

Op-ed headline: 'I spoke up against sexual violence and faced our culture's wrath'

Topics

jury question about op-ed statement scopeheadline vs. full op-ed distinction for Question 43 falsitywritten clarification sent to deliberating juryjudge deferring Chew motion while case is with juryidentification of headline as the alleged defamatory statement

procedural proceduralop-eddefamation

← Day 24 Jury Instructions — Penney Azcarate 1 of 1 Day 26 → Verdict