Beginning on April 11th 2022, it felt like the entire internet was consumed by Depp v. Heard. If one were fervently following on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, there was a very specific perspective that was being portrayed through isolating specific parts of the televised trial. For individuals interacting with that content, it seemed like there is clearly one person in the wrong: Amber Heard. But if it truly was a matter of guilt and innocence, we would be witnessing an entirely different case. 

A distinction must be made when attempting to understand Depp v. Heard objectively. This is a civil case, not one trying to determine who is in the right or wrong in the relationship. It is a defamation case deciding whether or not the public image of the two individuals were tarnished by the other; rather than finding guilt or innocence, the case resulted in the affected party (or parties) being compensated for monetary losses that resulted from published accusations. To those jumping to the immediate support of Johnny Depp, they are invested in a trial looking for fault and a clear victim, contributing to the media spectacle it became. 

In her interview with NPR News, Nicole Bedera, a sociologist who focuses on the factors that influence sexual violence, attributes the uncritical support that most of the internet has shown towards Depp to Depp’s falling into the mold of a perfect victim. Bedera refers to this as “perfect victim syndrome.”

“This is really common in cases like this, where perpetrators will claim that they are the true victims,” Bedera states. “They do something that psychologists call 'DARVO.' 'DARVO' is an acronym that stands for deny, attack and reverse victim and offender. And we're seeing it on display really clearly in this case, where Johnny Depp is denying—not that he was violent, he actually is still admitting that there was violence coming from him in this relationship. But he's denying that Amber Heard's story of it is trustworthy, and instead saying that she drove him to violence." 

Let’s look at how ingrained this trope really is. A marriage counselor, Laurel Anderson, and two clinical psychologists, Dawn Hughes and Shannon Curry, were brought to the stand to provide a professional perspective on the effects of abuse in the marriage between Depp and Heard and in regards to Heard’s mental health. Anderson testified to there being mutual abuse. Hughes demonstrated that Heard suffers PTSD from the relationship. Curry, who was brought in by Depp’s legal team, argued that Heard possessed two personality disorders. Yet mental health and emotional wellbeing somehow did not lead to any discretion for this case, and rather encouraged individuals to use this personal information to confirm their own biases. If the individuals at the forefront of this publicized case were your everyday John and Jane Doe, the emotional attachment muddling public opinion would not be as severe. But in Depp v. Heard, these assessments were practically ignored due to their existing biases. These assessments were instead weaponized to portray Heard as mentally unsound, further strengthening the depiction of Depp as a “perfect victim.”

No one can truly understand the intricacies of Depp and Heard’s unhealthy relationship. The decision to broadcast such a complex case may have provided some with entertainment, while riddling others with fear and anxiety. It is important to further note that with the jury awarding Depp $15 million in damages, male victims of domestic violence were empowered against the stigma that exists for male victims of domestic violence, but there still exists adverse implications. Having deemed herself a “public figure representing domestic abuse,” the act of invalidating Heard’s narrative has major implications for female survivors of domestic violence, particularly those that aren’t as high profile. 

Cases like Depp v. Heard reflect the unforgiving nature of public opinion. They are the same cases that become a moral for those wishing to speak out, as cultural and societal norms are critical to how victims, perpetrators, and third parties consider domestic violence. In Depp v. Heard, an additional component exists, where the violence depicted demands that one party must be the victim, and the other a perpetrator, painting one party out to be a liar: Amber Heard.  

The lack of impartiality from the public created an oversight in how bidirectional violence contributed to the state of Depp and Heard’s relationship. Bidirectional violence in the pair’s relationship is even more plausible as the concerning accounts given by both parties reveal how broken their relationship truly was. Furthermore, while Heard’s history with the law involves prior domestic violence charges, Depp is not without a record of his own. The failure to consider how Depp and Heard's relationship created an environment for violence is a result of the media saturating the internet with polarizing information specific to each individual. Paired with diluted professional testimonials provided by Anderson, Hughes, and Curry, we can see how media coverage of Depp v. Heard primed biased perceptions that fail to consider how the pair’s relationship is just as complex as any other. 

And while it seems like the public has all but forgotten about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, several documents Depp’s legal team fought to keep private have been unsealed. Along with information regarding how Depp’s legal team planned on discrediting Heard by degrading her character, the documents include evidence suggesting edited audio recordings and a refusal for Depp to submit to a psychological evaluation. This information does not bode well for Depp’s image. But what does it matter, the public has already made their verdict in regards to Depp and Heard’s personal affairs. 

Regardless of whether one is a staunch Depp fan or a Heard sympathizer, the effect of televising the private affair is indisputable. Begging the question—is it truly just to broadcast legal cases for public viewership?

In the United States, televising trials involving celebrities is not uncommon. Neama Rahmani attributes this to the lack of trust Americans have for their justice systems. The former federal prosecutor states that in a way, broadcasting trials helps maintain some faith in the United States justice system. In fact, public trials are a constitutional right protected by the sixth amendment. And the exact words in the amendment reveal how public trials are to ensure fairness and impartiality—the latter seemingly being lost in cases like Depp v. Heard. 

Though the sixth amendment is grounds for justifying media coverage during legal disputes, public broadcasting might be taking it too far. More accurately, public broadcasting takes it too far to the point where impartiality simply can't be maintained. Nearly all 50 states allow some form of media coverage during court cases, though types of coverage vary. Interestingly enough, Virginia—where Depp v. Heard took place—is extremely conservative when it comes to media coverage in the courtroom. Excessive demand from media outlets to cover the trial is what ultimately allowed it to become the media spectacle that it was. Additionally, content creators made huge monetary gains by posting Depp-related media on social media platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok. 

Excessive media coverage, as witnessed in Depp v. Heard, defeats the purpose of an individual’s sixth amendment right to a public and impartial trial. The presence of media in courtrooms has been long contested, and here, as with other cases, media coverage blurs the lines between being a conduit of justice and one of entertainment, creating an environment for biases to distort the truth. Transforming our systems of justice into a form of entertainment by the media changes how people interact with the law and perceive issues of social justice. Depp v. Heard is a primary example of this, and its implications extend culturally to deeper issues such as how society perceives domestic violence, amongst other abuses.