• Experts weigh in on Amber Heard’s options for appealing the defamation lawsuit judgement she lost to her ex-husband Johnny Depp.
• In an interview with The Independent, Lisa Bloom provided insight into Ms Heard’s future chances.
• Ms Bloom began by stating that “[Ms Heard[] was deemed to have defamed him based on a headline that she did not compose, but rather retweeted.”

“If this judgement is sustained, it will create huge First Amendment issues for the millions of tweeps who RT stuff all day.” Are they responsible for defamation if the article is incorrect?”

Read more: one-fundings-identity-amber-heards-legal-team-was-revealed

Appeal on grounds of ‘suppression’:

“The arguments on appeal are based on what Heard claims are wrong legal findings by the judge,” Mr Weber says. That is why it is critical to file objections and motions during the trial in order to preserve these concerns for appeal.”

“According to Elaine Bredehoft’s statements following the judgement, it appears they will be focusing on material that was’suppressed’ at trial, such as medical records, and maybe alleging that prejudiced evidence from [Mr Depp] was permitted to be included.”

“It also appears that [Ms Heard’s team] was upset that the UK judgement, in which a court found many instances of abuse by [Mr Depp], could not be brought to the jury.”

Furthermore, Ms Heard’s attorney “may possibly argue that there were flaws with the jury instructions/jury form.”

Read more: sharon-osbourne-describes-johnny-depp-and-amber-heards-marriage-as-ugly-and-intense

Appeal over verdict ‘inconsistencies’:

“How can it be that Amber Heard was defamed when Johnny Depp’s lawyer stated her charges were a fake, and yet Johnny Depp was also defamed when she said she was a symbol of domestic violence?” Ms Bloom asked on BBC Newsnight. That seems incongruous to me, and you can’t have an inconsistent verdict.”

Appeal on Jury grounds:

Mr. Weber stated that “[Ms. Heard’s team] may even try to establish that because the jury was not sequestered, they were exposed to all of the Depp fans and media attention, and it contaminated the result.”

“On the one side, you may wonder how they could not have been exposed and soiled by the press, the crowds, and social media,” he said.

“It seems obvious that the jury on a widely publicised case like this should be sequestered, not only ‘instructed’ not to go on the Internet or talk to anybody about the case,” Ms Ahouraian concurred. “That isn’t practical in this instance: people go home to their families, and the case is all over the place.” Giving the jurors the benefit of the doubt, I’m confident that when someone was reading their email or doing anything relatively benign, some information showed up.”