Depp-Heard trial verdict condemned as a ‘toxic catastrophe’ for women

A day after Johnny Depp largely won his defamation lawsuit against Amber Heard, Heard's lead attorney said "lopsided" social media posts about the trial turned the courtroom into a "zoo" and influenced the jury's verdict.

Speaking to NBC, Elaine Bredehoft said the verdict sent "a horrible message", adding that she believed the seven-member jury was not able to escape the social media frenzy that enveloped the six-week trial.

"How can you [escape it]?" she asked. "They went home every night. They have families. The families are on social media. We had a 10-day break in the middle because of the judicial conference. There's no way they couldn't have been influenced by it.

"It's like the Roman colosseum, you know? How they viewed this whole case. I was against cameras in the courtroom and I went on record with that and argued against it because of the sensitive nature of this. But it made it a zoo."

Jurors found that Depp and Heard defamed each other. But they substantially found in Depp's favor, with all three of his claims supported to one of three claims by Heard. The parties were awarded $10.35m and $2m respectively.

Heard's attorneys said they would appeal.

Outcry built on Thursday. Tarana Burke, co-founder of the #MeToo movement, said in a statement: "The way in which #MeToo has been co-opted and manipulated during the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial is a toxic catastrophe and one of the biggest defamations of the movement we have ever seen."

Bredehoft said Heard told her she felt she had let down women.

"One of the first things she said is, 'I am so sorry to all those women out there. This is a setback for all women in and outside the courtroom.' She feels the burden of that."

Some experts in the field of sexual and domestic violence said the verdict should be a wake-up call to women, to redouble efforts in a system that does not guarantee equal protection.

"This is a symptom of a culture that has oppressed women since its founding," Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor, told the Guardian. "This is exhibit one in proof that women need full equality under the law in this country. Without it, we get absurd verdicts like this."

Murphy said Heard was denied equal protection because the US constitution has denied it to women since 1868, when the 14th amendment guaranteed "equal protection of the laws" without explicitly mentioning women. It wasn't until 1971 that a supreme court ruling, Reed v Reed, established that dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional.

"Without constitutional equality, the laws need not be equally enforced on behalf of any woman by any court ever," Murphy said. "But the idea that this verdict is going to set us back, that women are going to go silent, women are scared, is bullshit.

"Women will respond to this with a vengeance. We will rise up, we will speak out, we will organise and respond."

Lisa Bloom, a high-profile lawyer, pointed out that one of the counts against Heard concerned the headline of the Washington Post article at issue - "I spoke up against sexual violence - and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change" - which Heard did not write.

Murphy said the "irrational nature" of the verdict - in which jurors granted Heard's claim that Depp defamed her when his lawyer described her claim of domestic abuse as "an ambush, a hoax" - will help with any appeal.

"Maybe this was an irrational jury," she said, "but it's not unusual for a jury to come up with a verdict where they feel like they're giving a little bit to both sides.

"But the fact that the jury [first] came back without any damages and were sent back to the jury room is powerful proof that this was just a dumb jury. It doesn't matter what thing they got hung up on. The issue is why was the jury unable to be rational?

"Why were they unable to see what was right in front of them and instead be subjected to the distortion tactics of Depp's defense that allowed the evidence to whoosh past them?"