Depp vs. Heard

[CopperLily]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/entertainment/johnny-depp-amber-heard-mistrial/index.html

Juror 15 was apparently born in 1970, but the summons to be a juror was for someone of the same last name born in 1945, the court documents claim.

"Juror No. 15 was not the individual summoned for jury duty on April 11, 2022 and therefore was not part of the jury panel and could not have properly served on the jury at this trial," the memorandum reads. "Therefore, a mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered."

An extremely normal and well-conducted trial.

[Vekseid]

Reading the motion is hilarious.

"We realize the law says verifying this information was our own responsibility during voir dire, and it specifically says such errors shall not force a mistrial. We know it looks very bad that we held this until now, but could you give us this, please?"

This is on top of the assumption that the man wasn't 77. My own grandfather looked like he was in his 50s until he was past 90.

[Vekseid]

Specifically. per the code:

§ 8.01-353. Notice to jurors; making copy of jury panel available to counsel; objection to notice.
A. The sheriff shall notify the jurors on the list, or such number of them as the judge may direct to appear in court on such day as the court may direct. Such notice shall be given a juror as provided by § 8.01-298. Verbal direction given by the judge, or at his direction, to a juror who has been given notice as hereinbefore provided that he appear at a later specified date, shall be a sufficient notice. Any notice given as provided herein shall have the effect of an order of court. No particular time in advance of the required appearance date shall be necessary for verbal notice hereunder, but the court may, in its discretion, excuse from service a juror who claims lack of sufficient notice. Upon request, the clerk or sheriff or other officer responsible for notifying jurors to appear in court for the trial of a case shall make available to all counsel of record in that case, a copy of the jury panel to be used for the trial of the case at least three full business days before the trial. Such copy of the jury panel shall show the name, age, address, occupation and employer of each person on the panel. Any error in the information shown on such copy of the jury panel shall not be grounds for a mistrial or assignable as error on appeal, and the parties in the case shall be responsible for verifying the accuracy of such information.

B. No judgment shall be arrested or reversed for the failure of the record to show that there was service upon a juror of notice to appear in court unless made a ground of exception in the trial before the jury is sworn.

Code 1950, § 8-208.16; 1973, c. 439; 1974, c. 243; 1976, c. 261; 1977, c. 617; 1980, c. 452; 1981, c. 150; 1988, c. 350; 2010, c. 799.

The time for this to be addressed was during voir dire, as the responsibility of both parties. Not on appeal.

[Oniya]

Not to mention that one's 'fitness' to serve on a jury isn't governed by whether one is named Bob, Carol, Ted or Alice - it's governed on the questions about potential bias asked during voir dire, which generally don't include 'What is your name?'.  The purpose of a jury summons is to get a pseudo-random (since it's usually drawn from either registered voters or DMV records) group of people from the community.  'Person who got mis-delivered jury summons' is pretty darn random to me.

[Azy]

She just keeps digging that hole for herself, doesn't she....  If that doesn't scream I'm a spoiled bitch grasping at straws because I didn't get my way, I don't know what does. 

[CopperLily]

Specifically. per the code:

The time for this to be addressed was during voir dire, as the responsibility of both parties. Not on appeal.

This isn't part of the appeal, its a motion for a mistrial, as I understand it.

Frankly, if this was any other case, I don't think people would be going "Guess you should have checked the jury better, eh?". That's what makes me so uncomfortable about this trial - how much it's become a referendum on "Do we think Amanda Heard is a good person?"

[CopperLily]

Not to mention that one's 'fitness' to serve on a jury isn't governed by whether one is named Bob, Carol, Ted or Alice - it's governed on the questions about potential bias asked during voir dire, which generally don't include 'What is your name?'.  The purpose of a jury summons is to get a pseudo-random (since it's usually drawn from either registered voters or DMV records) group of people from the community.  'Person who got mis-delivered jury summons' is pretty darn random to me.

Ironically, at some point recently while working as an expert witness on COVID-19 related stuff, I mentioned that fear of the consequences of COVID was non-differential by both age and race, which would result in a non-random jury pool.

I was told not to bother with that line of argument because "Is this sample random" isn't something most judges will care about.

[CopperLily]

Also, one could pretty easily argue that "Someone who got an errant jury summons and kept that a secret in order to appear on the jury" has a pretty low prior probability of being an unbiased juror.

[Azy]

For one, when you get a jury summons, it doesn't tell you anything about the case.  When that juror showed up at the court there was no way he could've known that was the case summons was for.  I'm sure it's done that way to prevent unbiased people from lying as you are implying.  I've gotten a summons.  It says hi, [name here], we picked your name to serve on a jury.  Show up at this building at this time on this date.  I sent the form back with a reason I couldn't show up, and to this day have no clue what case the summons was for.  The juror in question probably didn't know it was a mistake either.  They don't put Social Security numbers or birth dates, or anything on the summons.  Just your name and address.     

Second, both legal teams had the chance to review who was on the jury before the trial.  From my understanding, they bring in a pool of people.  Each legal team gets a certain number of black balls to say we don't want this person on the jury.  Her legal team didn't have any issues at that point.  Most likely the only reason they know about the mistake at all is they were digging for an excuse for a mistrial.  That's a pretty poor one. 

Third, this isn't about whether or not Amber Heard is a good person.  Yes, this case got a lot of publicity because they are celebrities.  That being said, this was about whether or not she was lying about being abused to get sympathy and money.  There was quite a bit of evidence that she was.  I don't doubt they both did shit that was wrong.  When people who aren't compatible are together they both do crazy shit.  I have personal experience in this.  That's why both were awarded some of what they were suing for, it's just that Johnny was awarded more because there were giant holes in her story and theatrics on the stand. 

Lastly, men can be victims of abuse as well.  I hate it that people assume that since men are usually physically stronger that they are always the perpetrators and can't be victims.   

[Azuresun]

She just keeps digging that hole for herself, doesn't she....  If that doesn't scream I'm a spoiled bitch grasping at straws because I didn't get my way, I don't know what does.

I think like a lot of things, it's more about creating a narrative that those already inclined to believe her will buy. The trial was unfair, she's the real victim, etc.

Lastly, men can be victims of abuse as well.  I hate it that people assume that since men are usually physically stronger that they are always the perpetrators and can't be victims.   

Agreed. And stories from men who are falsely accused of abuse, or who are not taken seriously when they get abused, only damage the notion that feminism is about equality or helping women, vs just dumping on men.