1. Surprised she’s only an associate at her firm due to her obvious quality and 12 years out of law school. If it’s a matter of not bringing in enough revenue to make her a partner I’d say this case will have people calling specifically for her.

  2. I'm almost surprised that she didn't need to take drink in between that litany of objections, unlike Amber Heard between half of the questions she had to answer during cross.

  3. Elaine was a wreck on the re-direct today. I just remember the long, audible breath she took while staring at the ceiling when trying to deliver one of her questions after this.

  4. Don't they look into their question as if they're from the other side? I'm sure they'd immediately object after hearing the same question they had so why not write it that would not warrant an objection in the first place?

  5. It was embarrassing to watch, it looked like she wandered into the courtroom by accident without understanding anything happening around her.

  6. So, my only experience in a courtroom was as a witness for the prosecution (I was the victim of a violent crime, one of multiple people in a bit of a spree, to paint the picture), and in this clip, Heard’s attorneys sound as impotent as the shitty public defender that I had to answer.

  7. Lol I have seen quite a bit of this case and thought Heard’s lawyers were pretty terribly bad or at least too obvious in leading in their question and traps. Now I have seem some of Depp’s Lawyer and have realized just how bad this is. We are watching pros vs kindergartners here lol

  8. In their defence Amber’s lawyers are just screwed no matter what. They can’t lead Amber; but when she isn’t being led Heard has the tendency to say shit she can’t say (like bringing up Kate Moss), call everyone else a liar and throw her own lawyers under the bus.

  9. It legitimately has me wondering, and worried, if she (Ms. Heard) is being represented intentionally by ignorant and repugnant lawyers so she can later claim a mistrial or misrepresentation in order to drag this out further

  10. Can I ask something without ulterior motives? Did you watch the whole case or just edited snippets like this one? I feel like in this case, everybody likes to have an opinion but then again there are so many edited videos out there that paint a very specific image.

  11. Did you see the clip of AH’s male attorney questioning a witness and he straight up objected to his own question lmfao. Then he had this moment of confusion on his face right before realizing that he just objected to himself and quickly corrected it but the damage had been done (he looked like a g-damn moron). I mean I can’t imagine that her lawyers are this fucking stupid, so I am left with assuming that they’re beyond exhausted from dealing with her nonsense and this is the result. Or… this really is the best she can afford lol.

  12. Commentors on Lawtube (actual lawyers on youtube) are saying that Heards team are competent but they have a difficult client with a difficult case. Make of that what you will.

  13. I feel bad for all the people who became consumed by this trial without noticing that major republican corporations (LOOKING AT YOU FOX) are promoting Depp by creating these videos to push an anti-feminism agenda.

  14. They're probably tip tier lawyers but their client is so obviously guilty and probably lying to them so they are fucked

  15. I'm not sure if the AH lawyers team are lousy but they are for sure dealing with a smart ass client they could not control, which is very difficult in this case. AH is basically blurting out too many things that shouldn't have been said out of her mouth.

  16. Johnny has 8 in his legal team. The main two in terms of representing in the court are Ben Chew and Camilla Vasquez. They are both absolute top guns, but Ms Vasquez has been absolutely fire on the cross examination. It is an old fashioned thing that when cross examining a woman legal teams may choose a young female lawyer to conduct the cross to appear less intimidating or more sympathetic to the jury. But whatever, in this case Ms Vasquez is proving to be basically the best in the business so it would make no sense to use anyone else.

  17. Well in fairness; given how well she destroyed Heard, they could probably just give the entire case to Camille Vasquez and let everyone else be her entourage.

  18. No, she's the one who was assigned to do the cross with Amber Heard, prepared for it, questioned her and is now doing the redirect. She has read every piece in the yellow press, every tweet from Heard, sat in the all the depositions, has read the London trial protocols... She#s bascially the expert for the Heard side of the case.

  19. Just incredible when Elaine totally loses her cool and gets snippy at 1:24. And Camille is just so bewildered - if looks could kill...

  20. Lawyer here. When you are questioning your own witness, you have to ask questions that illicit testimony from the witness’s own mouth rather than state the testimony and have the witness agree with you. Some degree of leading questions are unavoidable, but a good judge will know when they matter or not. We want meaningful evidence to come from witnesses, not lawyers. Leading example: “You found a gun in the purse, correct?” Proper question example: “what did you find in the purse?”

  21. It means the lawyer asking the question was phrasing it is a way that would get the person to answer it the way they think they should. It is called 'leading a witness ', so the lawyer objecting to it says 'Objection, leading' so the judge knows what they are objecting to.

  22. Counsel can only ask open-ended questions to their witnesses and cannot suggest or "lead" towards the answer. "Objection: leading" is objecting to the form of the question being asked.

  23. This is what I believe it means: a leading question is a question put in such a way that you are "leading", or helping the person to give the answer you want by asking them the question in a way that steers them toward a certain answer.

  24. If this was re-direct examination, then Heard's own lawyer cannot ask her leading questions - suggesting the answer by the question. "Isn't it correct you called 911 on xxxx date around 10pm?" Vs 'did you make any phone calls on xxxx date? Then following up with details... "who did you call?" What time was the call?" What type of phone were you using to make the call? You can ask leading questions on cross examination but cannot on direct [there is an exception for hostile witnesses that is not applicable in this scenario].

  25. The "She absolutely did that" I think references Camille Vasquez (the one objecting), not Amber. This was a redirect and she was commenting about the fact Vasquez asked that question to Heard on cross (and on cross you're allowed to ask leading questions). I think the problem is that Elaine doesn't know what a leading question is, which is why she started arguing with the judge about it (not in this clip, but in the room).

  26. The lawyer for Heard gets visibly frustrated but like... when Depp was being questioned they objected to everything, including their own questions! They objected things Depp said Heard told him firsthand as hearsay! What a terrible legal team. Don't expect to play hardball with the other legal team and them not play hardball right back.

  27. They also had no ability to rephrase, Vasquez was able to defeat every single objection be asking a different question. Skill diff.

  28. I would suggest Legalbytes on YouTube. They (Channel owner and guests) stream the entire court day and have legal commentary and each morning she does a recap of the previous day (you know; if you don’t want to watch a 12 hour video).

  29. Johnny has such a great team on his side, Amber Heard doesn't stand a chance. Her lawyers are third-grade in comparison.

  30. Johnny is trying to prove defamation, with an article that she didn't mention him in as basis for such, which was released years after their divorce was finalized.

  31. This lawyer of Amber frequently argues with the judge is that normal? It seems insane to me that she does that.

  32. During this redirect, the lawyer kept trying to frame her questions with the phrase "what, if any..." And getting the "objection, leading". Eventually the judge said "'what if any' is not a cure-all" and one or two questions later, the lawyer said it again and followed up immediately with "what if any is a cure-all". I couldn't believe it.

  33. The judge even told her "'what if any is not a cure-all" lmao. And then she tried to do it again and said it "is a cure-all". A fucking shambles.

  34. The amount of times they approach the bench is really frustrating. Is it normal for there to be so many sidebars? And can anyone inform on what they are talking about in these instances?

  35. I kinda feel bad foe her lawyers. Imagine getting paid a lot but then ruining your career by looking dumb and like amateurs.. Just in case she loses does and file for bankruptcy, can she not pay them?

  36. Wow. Holy hell. I haven’t been following this trial and I don’t know who the lawyers are, so it is hard for me to judge for sure, but the attorney doing the witness examination just feels like someone waaaay of out their depth. Whether it is for the lack of experience or lack of preparation is very hard for me to say. But…

  37. Basically when Johnny’s lawyer objects due to leading, it means that Amber’s lawyers are asking questions meant to lead him to answer a certain way, this isn’t allowed because it’s basically trying to trick him into saying something they want him to say. They have to ask open ended questions. For example you can’t ask “and when you entered the store, you pulled a gun and robbed the place, right?” You would have to ask “what happened upon entering the store?”. This also brings us to the hearsay objections, you can’t ask questions under the assumption of certain circumstances that have not yet been proven, let’s use the same example. They couldn’t ask that first question I gave “what happened upon entering the store” if there isn’t any evidence that suggests you were in the store in the first place, this would be an attempt to trick you into providing a (possibly false) testimony that could incriminate you. I hope this helped!

  38. Are they questioning amber/their own witness? If so then you’re right. It’s probably examination in chief or reexamination. You CANNOT lead in chief.

  39. Elaine is the most unprofessional lawyer I think I've ever seen in a court room, she constantly throws a fit and argues with the judge. I guess Amber Teard found someone she could get along with to be her lawyer.

  40. I feel like you get what you pay for and amber heard is cheap as fuck. Bro can’t even donate the money she promised to.

  41. Nah, she admitted to spending 6 million on lawyers so far and used that as an excuse as to why she didn't donate the money, even though she got sued over a year after she got the divorce money.

  42. So, I do not watch this trial, but I saw the excat same from the other lawyers team and everyone went like "they are so bad, they just throw objections out, so nobody can speak!" now you make a super cut of "objection" from the other team and everyone is like: "damn so good, they get destroyed by all these objections"

  43. Can someone explain in which team the women in white is and the standing women? I dont really understand it even going through the comments

  44. Lawyer here. Heard's attorney has almost no grasp of the rules of evidence and/or has never taken testimony from a witness in court. Probably both. These are basic rules that she's violating. A second year law student could do better.

  45. I really hope after this trial both team of lawyers can go some beer and talked thing out to relax. I means it's just their jobs and Amber is a shitty clients.

  46. Don’t blame the lawyers, they have nothing to go off of. This proves Johnny is innocent. If ambers lawyers had something they wouldn’t be like this.

  47. Exactly, if she knew she had clear proof, she'd not be forced to stir her in a direction to get those answers... she's showing the jury that she doesn't trust her client's potential answers.

  48. Just imagine the comments section when this trial doesn't go in the direction everyone here thinks it will. Lots of REEEEEEEEEEEEE going to happen.

  49. "amber heard REKT by johnny's sexy redpilled lawyer OBLITERATES feminist pwned compilation gone wrong!!!"

  50. I’m sorry but nothing in this “court case” is interesting as fuck. I’m getting sick and tired of seeing this bs on Reddit

  51. Yeah so boring, hence why so many people are interested in it and why you clicked this link and commented, omg so boring

  52. What's even worse is that during the cross examination many of this (Amber's) lawyer's objections get overruled it's embarrassing.

  53. This young lady is excellent. I know we only see snippets or 'highlights' but in everything I've seen she seems to really understand law and the court procedures.

  54. with all this and many more instances where Amber Heard's counsel is outmatched and in over their heads, they will likely still prevail if only because Depp's case is so hard to prove. but i dont think winning was ever Depp's true purpose. He is winning the war of public opinion... BY A MILE.

  55. She is a literal objection machine. She just sits there listening intently, waiting for the word in each question that makes it objectionable and then spits it out, the entire time looking like she is just in awe of how incompetent the opposition is. It's as if she is disgusted to be in the same court room with them, and everything about it, all the way to the way she immediately looks insulted when the other lawyer dars try to argue against the objection, is sexy as hell.

  56. Objection your honor, the opposing counsel not having more questions for me to object to, is not helping me.

  57. There’s nothing acrimonious about this. Depp’s attorney is doing her job. It’s on Heard’s attorney to get it right.

  58. I believe (and hope) Depp will lose this trial and I really don’t understand the collective boner for him. That said was Heard’s redirect incredibly bad.

  59. This was so cringe to watch and it felt like bullying. They are both such full of shit (amber and elaine) that this is just embarrassing

  60. I kind of feel for AH's legal team. I realise that her lawyer is looking pretty stupid but frankly I've been there myself as a defence lawyer. You're not allowed to call your client an idiot and a moron and you have to run with their defence, no matter how ridiculous it seems to you. Sometimes the instructions you get are so absurd but the client is dense and you cannot explain to them in words of one syllable why the questions she wants you to put make no sense. So what you do is simply put the questions and allow the judge to shoot them down. This allows you to shrug your shoulders and say to the client: 'I tried.'

  61. Johnny Depp has a Terminator for a lawyer. She's just calmly & emotionlessly shooting down question after question after question.

  62. Heard’s lawyer looks like the kid in class who didn’t bring a long enough presentation but also isn’t smart enough to reliably wing it

  63. If he already lost a defamation case that he pursued in the UK, why would he also pursue a defamation case in the US? Seems odd to put himself through this again with a high potential of the trial not coming out in his favor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News Reporter