[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

The Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial

Have you seen any of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard Trial on TV, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or TikTok?

If you have, then you may agree with me that it’s partly sad, partly funny and mostly incredibly boring.  

From the perspective of a Trial Lawyer, it’s always interesting to see other colleagues practice the craft. It’s easy to be critical and laugh at gaffs, but you’d be surprised at how hard it is to think quickly on your feet and be ready to you react to what is always an unpredictable process.

What’s With All of The Objections?

One of the most confusing and annoying things about a  trial are all of the objections that attorneys make.  Objections are made in order to prevent the jury from hearing evidence that is improper.

One of the most frequent objections that you will hear in a trial is a Hearsay Objection. 

What is Hearsay and Why is it Prohibited?

So, what in the world is Hearsay anyway?

Hearsay is defined as “an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.”  Hearsay can be oral testimony from a witness or it can be a document, like a letter or an email.

Hearsay is what someone else said or wrote who is not sitting on the witness stand testifying and the testimony or writing is being offered to show that what was said or written is actually a fact.

A Hearsay Objection usually will occur when the person on the witness stand begins to say that “so and so Told me….” or “so and so Said….”

Here Are Some Specific Examples of Hearsay

Assume Johnny Depp was trying to testify about a conversation that he had with one of the police officers who investigated a domestic violence report by Amber Heard and Johnny said: “The police officer told me that he looked at Amber and did not believe that there was any evidence that she had been hit by me.”

That particular statement would be Hearsay because Johnny is attempting to get into evidence what  someone else (the police officer) said for the purpose of proving the truth of that statement that there was no physical evidence that Johnny had been violent towards Amber.

Under those circumstances, it would not be fair to have that evidence introduced. It’s unreliable.  Johnny might be lying.  If Johnny’s lawyer wants to prove that point, he needs to call the actual police officer to testify rather than have Johnny testify as to what the police officer allegedly saw. The Hearsay Rule prevents this type of unfair evidence from coming in to the trial.

Similarly, if the police officer in this example wrote a report about his investigation of the domestic violence incident and wrote in the report that he did not believe that there was any physical evidence that Amber had been hit, that report could not be introduced into evidence because it is Hearsay. It’s a written document being offered to prove the truth of the statement contained in the document.  Again to prove that point Johnny’s lawyer has to call the police officer to testify and authenticate the report in court.

Another reason why Hearsay evidence, either oral or written, is not allowed is that the other side should have the opportunity to cross examine the actual witness in order to test the veracity of his or her statements. In my second example if the police report could come in to evidence on its own, Amber‘s lawyers would have no ability to conduct cross examination because you can’t cross examine a piece of paper.

So those are the bare-bones basics of the Hearsay Rule. It is designed to prevent unfair evidence from coming into a trial. As you might expect, there are several exceptions to the Hearsay Rule and I will discuss them in upcoming articles.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Trial Lawyer with the Chester County Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd.  Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester.  For over 25 years Tim Rayne has been helping injured accident victims receive fair treatment from insurance companies.  Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

[/column]

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

It’s the weekend at The Masters Golf Tournament and Tiger Woods made the cut.  So, what if happens if Tiger hits an errant shot and seriously injures a Patron (yes they are called Patrons, not spectators)? Can the injured Patron file a lawsuit against the GOAT?

The simple answer is No, and this is based upon the legal defense of Assumption of the Risk.

If someone is injured by someone else’s conduct (like Tiger’s Shank in this example) there may or may not be legal liability on behalf of the perpetrator.

If the victim can prove Negligence/Carelessness on behalf of the perpetrator, there may be a legal claim for reasonable compensation for the harm.

However, in this situation, the Patron has Assumed the Risk of injury by attending the golf tournament.  Assumption of the Risk has two elements, knowledge of danger and voluntarily confrontation of the known danger.

In The Masters scenario, it is commonly known by golf spectators that golf in an inexact game and that errant shots frequently occur.  In addition, because of the layout of golf courses, it’s impossible to protect the spectators from injury from errant golf shots.  So, it’s known and understood that spectators may suffer an injury if they voluntarily choose to attend a golf tournament.

In addition to it being commonly known, the Ticket to The Masters contains explicit language providing that the Patrons understand and assume the risk of injury and release any potential claims.

Here’s what the Ticket says:

All risks associated with golf tournaments, including without limitation, being hit by a golf ball or golf club, stuck by lightning, and falling are assumed by ticket holder.  Tournament participants are released from any claims or liability arising from such causes.

Courts have held that provisions on the back of a ticket to an event are enforceable.

So, in our hypothetical, the injured Patron will have no legal claim against Tiger Woods.

The only silver lining is that there is an informal tradition that professional golfers who hit and injure Patrons will do something to try to make it up to them.  They commonly shake the person’s hand and give them a ball or autographed golf glove as a consolation prize.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, Ltd.  For over 25 years, Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies.  Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

[/column]

[column width=”1/1″ last=”true” title=”” title_type=”single” animation=”none” implicit=”true”]

Jim Carrey says Chris Rock Should Sue Will Smith for $200 Million

Actor/Comedian Jim Carrey appeared on a talk show yesterday and said that Chris Rock should sue Will Smith for $200 million for the slap incident at the Oscars.

I agree with him!

200 million dollars might be a little steep, but Will Smith‘s actions were outrageous.

It is simply not acceptable to respond to a joke with physical violence.

Will Smith has been an actor for over 30 years and has regularly attended award shows. Will and his wife Jada both knew that it is a standard part of every award show that hosts and presenters make fun of the celebrities who attend. People sitting in the front row are prime targets for these jokes and Will and his wife knew it.

So, it should have come as no surprise to either one of them that Chris made a joke regarding Jada’s shaved head.

Will’s reaction was shocking, selfish and extreme. He jumped up onto the stage, walked up to Chris, slapped him across the face, immediately turned his back and then went down into the audience where he shouted at Chris demanding in obscene language that he leave his wife alone.

For his part, Chris handled the incident appropriately and professionally.   Nevertheless, Chris will suffer significant embarrassment and harm to his reputation because a lot of people feel like he should have stood up for himself and defended himself but did not.

The Oscars video has been seen by billions of people by now and the harm to Chris Rock’s reputation will continue to spread as it is used as a meme on the internet. For a lot of people, Chris Rock will be known forever as “that guy who Will Smith slapped.”

The Legal Options – Criminal Charges or Civil Lawsuit

Chris could have and still can press criminal charges for Assault and Battery.  The Los Angeles Police and District Attorney would investigate and could move forward with relatively minor criminal charges.  At most, Will would likely face a fine and probation.

In addition, Chris clearly has a civil claim and could file a lawsuit for Assault and Battery because Will confronted and physically struck him without reasonable provocation.  The purpose of a civil lawsuit is to compensate the victim with money damages and to hold the defendant accountable for his actions as well as to deter him and others from committing similar acts in the future.

It does not appear that Chris suffered serious physical injuries from the Assault and Battery but emotionally he has suffered and will continue to suffer as the video view count climbs and the memes spread.  For some people, Chris Rock will be seen as that guy who let Will Smith slap him and yell at him without defending himself.  This permanently tarnishes his reputation.

Under the Civil Law System, Chris  is entitled to be compensated to try to make up for his emotional pain and the harm to his reputation.

Punitive Damages

In addition, Chris has a Punitive Damage claim against Will Smith. The purpose of Punitive Damages is to punish outrageous conduct and to deter the person who did it and others from doing similar things in the future.  In my opinion, this is a textbook case of an outrageous act that should be punished.

As a comedian, Chris would be doing a great service to his fellow comedians by telling Will Smith that this conduct will not be tolerated and by pursuing a civil claim.

People in this country need to know that they have no right to physically attack comedians just because they don’t like their jokes. Violence is never a reasonable response to a joke. Chris Rock can send a message and teach a lesson that this type of behavior cannot be tolerated, even from a beloved actor.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, Ltd.  Tim has law offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania and also meets with clients in their homes or virtually via Zoom or FaceTime.  Tim can be contacted at 6108400124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.  

[/column]