In a recent reports conducted by YouTuber BlackBeltBarrister he explained that , Camille Vasquez, a member of Johnny Depp’s legal team in the Virginia trial, highlighted significant differences between the Virginia and UK trials involving Johnny Depp. The insights provided shed light on crucial aspects that may have been overlooked by international observers.
The Virginia trial, where Amber Heard was the defendant, differed from the UK trial, which revolved around a libel case against the Sun newspaper. In the UK trial, the court found in favor of the Sun, ruling that their statement was substantially true. However, it is widely regarded that the Virginia trial holds more significance, a sentiment shared by Johnny Depp’s legal counsel.
One of the primary disparities between the two trials was the decision-making authority. In Virginia, a jury determined the outcome, whereas the UK trial relied on a single judge as the finder of fact. Although UK defamation law allows for jury trials in certain circumstances, they are not commonly used.
Another critical distinction is related to the presentation of witness testimony. In Virginia, Johnny Depp had the opportunity to tell his story from the witness stand and be cross-examined. Conversely, in the UK, witnesses primarily provide written witness statements, which serve as their primary evidence. Witnesses may only supplement their statements if new matters arise before the trial, with the judge’s permission. While some argue that written witness statements suffice in the UK, others contend that live testimony allows for a more comprehensive and human account.
The UK trial’s reliance on written witness statements extends to most civil cases, in stark contrast to criminal trials where live evidence is preferred. This difference in approach may have affected Johnny Depp’s ability to convey his story fully in the UK trial. A similar circumstance was observed in the recent Prince Harry trial, where his complete narrative was contained within the witness statement, leading to questions about the adequacy of this method.
Additionally, the video highlighted that the UK trial did not subject Amber Heard to the same disclosure rules as in Virginia. These rules, which were explained in previous videos by the BlackBeltBarrister, pertain to the disclosure of evidence and information that must be exchanged between parties in a legal proceeding.
While the argument in favor of a judge’s expertise is often raised, it fails to hold up under scrutiny. The UK system itself delegates decisions with a higher standard of proof to juries, acknowledging the importance of representative participation in the judicial process. Although judges possess legal knowledge, juries, composed of ordinary citizens, bring a broader societal perspective to the decision-making process.
Taking into account the aforementioned points, many argue that the Virginia trial holds greater authority. It featured the correct defendant, followed proper disclosure requirements, involved live witness testimony, and was decided by a jury. The more recent nature of the Virginia trial verdict further strengthens its influence, even though it was rendered in a different jurisdiction and involved different defendants.
While the UK trial had its merits, including a judge well-versed in the law, the disparities outlined raise questions about the sufficiency of written witness statements and the absence of live testimony.
The analysis presented by Camille Vasquez provides valuable insights into the contrasting trial procedures, prompting further discussions about the optimal methods for presenting witness testimony and the significance of jury involvement.
