Experts in Famous Cases: Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard
By Noah Bolmer
In this series of blogs, we explore the impact of expert witnesses in landmark cases. In recent history, few celebrity breakups have garnered as much court drama and media attention as that of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. After a devastating Washington Post op-ed by Heard, Depp proceeded to sue for defamation. The result of the case hinged on both the work and shortcomings of expert witnesses.
Background
Depp and Heard met on the set of The Rum Diary in 2009 and became romantically involved roughly two years later. They were married in 2015, but by May of the following year, Heard had filed for divorce and a restraining order against Depp, alleging domestic violence. As part of the filings, she also requested $20,000 per month in spousal support. Popular tabloid TMZ revealed that in court documents, Heard detailed a number of alleged incidents where Depp was inebriated and violent. Subsequently, Depp’s attorneys filed a response alleging that “Amber is attempting to secure a premature financial resolution by alleging abuse.”
After an increasingly public back-and-forth over the next several months, the two agreed to settle their divorce for $7 million, and Heard filed a motion to retract the restraining order. They released a joint statement in August of 2016:
Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm. Amber wishes the best for Johnny in the future. Amber will be donating financial proceeds from the divorce to a charity.
Despite a seemingly amicable departure, the truce would not last. At the end of 2016, she published an open letter in Porter which did not mention Depp directly, but expressed solidarity with survivors of the types of abuse she had previously alleged against him. The divorce was finalized at the beginning of 2017, with both parties expressing the desire to move on.
In mid-2018, Depp sued The Sun for libel in London, after framing him as a “wife beater” in an article headline. He lost the case, with Justice Nicol stating that the Sun had proved that the allegations were “substantially true”. Heard’s US attorney would foreshadow the subsequent case, stating “Very soon, we will be presenting even more voluminous evidence in the US”.
The Washington Post Op-Ed
In December of 2018, Heard published an opinion piece (paywalled) for The Washington Post titled, “I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” The op-ed was written as an ambassador on women’s rights for the ACLU. In it, she detailed the abuses from her youth and college, before moving on to the period in which she and Depp were involved, married, and subsequently divorced. While she did not name Depp in the piece, she did define the period of alleged abuse such that there was no question that he was the subject of that portion, writing:
[T]wo years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out [. . .] Imagine a powerful man as a ship, like the Titanic. That ship is a huge enterprise. When it strikes an iceberg, there are a lot of people on board desperate to patch up holes — not because they believe in or even care about the ship, but because their own fates depend on the enterprise [. . .] I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.
The piece moved from there to the more general, addressing the political climate, getting tried in the court of public opinion, and urged action from victims and politicians. Depp would sue for $50 million in damages, and she would file a counterclaim for $100 million, based largely on lost future income for installments of the Aquaman franchise, which she had successfully co-starred in prior to the suit.
The Trial
John C. Depp, II v. Amber Laura Heard (CL2019-0002911) was held in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, VA from April 11 to June 1st of 2022. At the time of the trial, there was wide media speculation that Depp would have an even harder time prevailing compared to the earlier case against the Sun. The United States has significantly more difficult barriers to proving defamation, resulting in “libel tourism”, where lawsuits are filed in the UK (when possible) for more favorable verdicts.
From the opening statements, it was a no-holds-barred match with Heard’s team immediately casting Depp as jealous and angry over her post-divorce success, ruthlessly trying to “destroy her” and “ruin her life”. The now-infamous Washington Post op-ed was framed as textbook protected speech, with the goal of affecting political change, not villainizing Depp. A notable viral moment occurred when one of Heard’s trial team showed an image of her concealer makeup kit as evidence that she was covering up bruises, which turned out to not have yet existed during the timeframe.
Meanwhile, Depp’s attorney painted a very different picture, where despite numerous documented accounts of him always remaining calm during outrageous pressure, Heard publicly accused him of flying off the handle and becoming abusive. He alleged that the op-ed was a hit piece, stating, “When, like Mr. Depp, your career depends on your image and your reputation, or whether movie producers want their movie associated with you, that can be particularly harmful.”
The trial proceeded with over two dozen witnesses, bolstering their respective sides. The jury heard character witnesses, eye-witness accounts, and fact witnesses recount their experiences with the pair, but the expert witnesses would dramatically shape the outcome of the case.
Damages Experts: Kathryn Arnold
Damages was the first issue where expert witnesses would have an important role. Kathryn Arnold, an entertainment industry consultant, (and Engaging Experts guest) was called by Heard’s attorney, Ms. Elaine Bredehoft. Ms. Arnold wore two hats, testifying on both Depp’s claim and Heard’s counterclaim. On direct, her attorney first worked to establish credibility:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. And how many times have you qualified as an expert on damages?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Almost all my cases had some form of damage relation, you know, economic damage related to the case. So, I would say in all of the cases that I’ve testified in, I’ve been qualified in damages.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. Have you served as an expert for both plaintiffs and defendants?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Yes, I have.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: How much of your current practice involves consulting as opposed to expert serving as an expert witness?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: So, over the last 10 or 12 years, it’s been about 50/50. So, I spent half my time working as a consultant and the other half working with lawyers on their cases.
Attorneys will often attempt to preemptively allay any attacks that an expert is a “hired gun” by showing significant work as both plaintiff and defendant.
Ms. Arnold would go on to say that Depp was responsible for any damages to his reputation, or Hollywood bankability:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. Thank you. Now, what, if any, effect did the op-ed have on Mr. Depp’s fan following?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: I don’t know. I don’t think it had any effect on his fan following. Again, his [IMDB Scores] didn’t shift and, clearly, has a strong fan base.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: In your opinion, what or who has caused the damage, if there is any, to Mr. Depp on his career and reputation between December 18, 2018, and November to 2020?
[. . .]
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Mr. Depp.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And why do you say that?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Well, again, filing the lawsuits, bringing to light the issues is Mr. Depp doing that on his own accord. And any statements that were made by his team, [Depp Attorney] Mr. Waldman, or anyone else, [who] is associated with Mr. Depp. And those statements that came out, the defamatory statements, which we’ll talk about in a minute, were also put out by Mr. Depp’s team. So, in actuality, he’s causing his own demise by bringing these lawsuits forward and continuing to kind of ignite the fire of negative publicity around both of them.
Direct moved on to Heard’s counterclaim, essentially making the case that her work and publicity suddenly dried up after Depp’s attorney Adam Waldman characterized her abuse allegations as a “hoax”, leading to a sustained social media negativity campaign.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: How has the negative social media campaign been used against Amber Heard since the Depp/Waldman statements?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Great. So, the negative campaign has been used both to “Let’s fire Amber off of Aquaman [2]” to the product that she had an endorsement contract with, with L’Oréal, the makeup. And every time that L’Oréal mentioned Amber Heard and the product together, they would get harassed. Her publicist company was harassed, any kind of movie that she was related to or television project that she was related to get negative attention from the social media world. Even the charities that she was involved with were getting hammered, if you will, or bombarded by negative social media, which made it difficult to work with Amber on any level because negativity was brought to their product, service, or film.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And is that negative social media campaign ongoing to this day?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Yes.
In cross, Depp’s attorney Wayne Dennison addressed the counterclaim damages. He essentially wanted to show that despite the timing, the Waldman “hoax” statement merely corelated with, but did not cause the negativity campaign against Heard:
Mr. Wayne Dennison: Okay. But you’re an expert who is purporting to say that Ms. Heard lost between $45 and $50 million. And I’m trying to understand where you put the link between the Waldman statements and all the other activity that occurred since then.
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: As I stated, and very clearly wanted to make sure that everybody understood was that it was a timeframe between Mr. Waldman’s statements were made and the negative decline in her career started happening. And in discussions with her agents and her publicist, there was a very tight timeline and a very close link to those statements came out. And when everything started pulling away from Ms. Heard.
Mr. Wayne Dennison: What you’re talking about is just a link in time. You do not put any causal connection between what Mr. Waldman purportedly said, and the damages that Ms. Heard purportedly suffered. You have no idea whether Mr. Waldman’s statements caused any damage to Ms. Heard, do you?
Ms. Kathryn Arnold: Well, actually, both the words in the statements were used as hashtags in the campaign, as well as when the statistical and investigative analysis was done on the social media campaign, it turned out that one in four of the statements had Waldman [. . .] in them. So that was another connection that I was able to make between the defamatory statements and this negativity that the studios and the product endorsements and the television and the press connected as well.
Questioning continued, where the main thrust of Mr. Dennison’s line of attack was that Ms. Arnold’s comparable actors (actors on a similar trajectory to Heard) were too tenuous to draw any conclusions. This would ultimately prove unconvincing to the jury, with Ms. Arnold’s performance tallying Heard’s only win in the suit.
Damages Expert: Richard Marks
Depp’s team called entertainment attorney Richard Marks as an expert witness. On direct, attorney Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz went right for Ms. Arnold’s credibility with an aggressive opening salvo:
Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz: Thank you, Your Honor. Welcome back, Mr. Marks. You’ve testified in this case previously, but would you just briefly remind the jury who you are?
Mr. Richard Marks: I’m Richard Marks, and I’m a full-time entertainment transactional attorney. I make deals every day for productions and for individuals. I’m in the trenches, negotiating and then making sure the contracts reflect the deals. And I’m very much distinguished from the other side’s expert, who is not an attorney, who’s not in the trenches, making deals, is not in that day-to-day process.
Heard’s counterclaim took center stage again, with Mr. Marks claiming that the future damage figures were unrealistic:
Mr. Richard Marks: Well, again, in Aquaman 2, Amber Heard has already had this huge increase. She worked on Aquaman 2 for $2 million. What Ms. Arnold is saying is, “Oh, she should have worked on it for $4 million,” which I disagree with, and I don’t…I think there is reasons to negotiate that weren’t here in this case. So the $4 million I have a disagreement with. But even if it was at $4 million or if it was at $2 million, the 4 or 5 movies that Ms. Heard might get might be independent movies. They might be stand-alone studio movies. They might be passion projects. Every actor has a quiver full of quotes, and their highest quote is for the superhero, fantasy, journey. Their lowest quote might be for the independent passion project where they’ll defer their salary and almost take nothing to work, just SAG minimum. And to assume that she’d get four or five more movies at her last fantasy quote would be to assume that those are also those type of movies, playing another character.
On cross, Heard’s attorney, Mr. Adam Nadelhaft, attempted to turn the tables by painting Mr. Marks as inexperienced in this particular niche:
Mr. Adam Nadelhaft: What actors have you negotiated for a superhero movie?
Mr. Richard Marks: As I sit here now, I can’t remember a superhero movie that I’ve negotiated. I’ve certainly negotiated over my career franchise movies and fantasy movies.
Mr. Adam Nadelhaft: Your Honor, so it’s no, you haven’t negotiated for any actors for superhero movies, correct?
Mr. Richard Marks: So you would define, like, I don’t know, Jungle Book isn’t a superhero movie. It’s more of a fantasy.
Mr. Adam Nadelhaft: Okay. So, no, correct?
Mr. Richard Marks: Okay. All right. So as I sit here, I can’t think of a Marvel-type superhero movie that I’ve negotiated, although, I know there’s one or two in here.
Attorneys will often try to impeach experts by differentiating the specific facts of the case with an expert’s experience. Typically, experts are prepared for these arguments, but Mr. Nadelhaft didn’t give Mr. Marks an opening, moving on immediately after getting the answer he wanted. His attorney tried to correct this on re-direct, but Mr. Marks’ response was tentative, implying that the defense hadn’t prepared for this particular line of questioning.
Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz: Mr. Marks, in response to some questions from Mr. Nadelhaft, you were discussing some franchise and fantasy movie agreements that you’ve negotiated with actors. Could you just describe some of those for us?
Mr. Richard Marks: You know, I’ve had such a long career that I mainly forget what I’ve done, but I negotiated all the contracts for Pinocchio, if you will, that was produced, you know, is Coming to America, the original. Is that a fantasy movie? The Golden Child, is that a fantasy movie? Yeah. And by the way, I may have negotiated contracts, and ultimately, the film wasn’t made, but as I sit here now, those are the only ones that come to pass. If I was looking at my resume or going through my files, I might think of others. But there isn’t a deal that I haven’t made.
Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz: And I think you also testified, in response to Mr. Nadelhaft’s questions, that you have negotiated some deals for Chris Pratt and Paul Rudd. Do you recall that testimony?
Mr. Richard Marks: Yes, these are for a streaming series.
Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz: Do you happen to know if both of those actors have played Marvel superheroes?
Mr. Richard Marks: I believe they have but don’t quote me because, you know, that’s not my genre.
Ms. MacDowell Lecaroz: Okay. No further questions, Your Honor.
Forensic Psychologist: Dr. Dawn Hughes
Each side provided a forensic psychologist to evaluate Heard’s PTSD claim, stemming from alleged violent acts by Depp. As truth is an affirmative defense to defamation, proving that the claims within Heard’s op-ed and elsewhere could essentially end the case.
Dr. Hughes was called by Heard’s team to establish that she had PTSD, and that it was caused by Depp. Attorney Elaine Bredehoft asked:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: What, if any, psychological tests did you administer that supported a diagnosis of PTSD for Amber Heard?
Dr. Dawn Hughes: Sure. So, there were four tests that supported that diagnosis [. . .] she scored in all four categories of trauma and of having intrusive experiences and nightmares and avoidance efforts and physiological hyperactivity, and changes in her mood and her thoughts. And her total score was a 28, which falls in the moderate range. So, that means that she has experienced a moderate degree of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, and those tests allow me to make that definitive diagnosis that she suffers from PTSD.
Cross examination proceeded, focusing on technical testing methodologies, and in particular whether or not the tests administered to test for PTSD were the “gold standard” tests. Counsel for Depp also attempted to show that it would be difficult to show it wasn’t pre-existing PTSD from childhood trauma:
Mr. Wayne Dennison: Right. And the way you tested this childhood abuse PTSD is you made notations on the right-hand…in the right-hand column of a form that you partially filled out for the IPV by Johnny. Right?
Dr. Dawn Hughes: Well, I disagree with the “partially filled out.” The frequency was clearly filled out in the box where we score the [PTSD test]. But, yes, I did write about the childhood to the right of that box.
Mr. Wayne Dennison: Okay. And that is the appropriate way that the gold standard test for PTSD for childhood trauma should be administered?
Dr. Dawn Hughes: If there were any affirmatives and I needed to go further, I could have administered another [PTSD test]. There were not…I did not need to do that.
On redirect, Bredehoft became mired in objections and difficulties with exhibits. She was able to have Dr. Hughes talk about her experience giving a demonstration about intimate partner violence, as well as attempting to shut down speculation that Heard was lying (clinically “malingering”):
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And what did you…what were the results, what did you determine based on the testing of this PAI [Personality Assessment Inventory, used to assess psychopathology]?
Dr. Dawn Hughes: Well, that the results were valid and reportable. There was no evidence of exaggeration or malingering on this test, and there was significant symptoms that correspond with traumatic stress and [PTSD] symptomatology.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And I believe you said, again, that there was no elevated scores. Can you explain to the jury what you meant by that?
Dr. Dawn Hughes: So, elevated scores are a way that we get to know where a cutoff is to say that something is clinically significant. And that follows very standard statistical principles. So, when a scale is elevated, it means that we have sort of greater confidence that this individual endorses a lot of different symptoms that make this scale relevant and that we want to figure out why that person is having an elevated score on something like depression or anxiety. It gives us greater confidence that, you know, this person is maybe reporting depressive symptoms like people who are depressed.
Forensic Psychologist: Dr. Shannon Curry
Depp attorney Wayne F. Dennison called Dr. Shannon Curry to rebut Dr. Hughes’ PTSD findings, instead, alleging personality disorders that would account for certain behaviors, and accused the opposing expert of misrepresenting Curry’s own medical evaluations of Heard. This testimony would prove pivotal in Depp’s win.
At the outset, Dr. Curry is careful to demonstrate neutrality, which would be crucial to rebut an expert diagnosis:
Mr. Wayne Dennison: What were you asked to provide expert opinion on?
Dr. Shannon Curry: So, initially, my role that I understood at the time, was to review the case materials and provide my opinions regarding anything that I noticed that was consistent or even inconsistent with the psychological science that exists today on intimate partner violence in Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard’s relationship. [emphasis added.]
This is of particular import to forensic psychologists, because there are unique ethical and professional implications when a clinician is evaluating a person who is not their client. In Depp v. Heard, there are two well-qualified clinicians who come to opposite conclusions; Dr. Curry implies that Heard is faking or exaggerating:
Mr. Wayne Dennison: Okay. As a result of applying those protocols, what did you conclude?
Dr. Shannon Curry: Ms. Heard did not have PTSD. And there were also pretty significant indications that she was grossly exaggerating symptoms of PTSD when asked about them.
Mr. Wayne Dennison: How did you make that latter conclusion?
Dr. Shannon Curry: So, one of the strengths of this test, as I mentioned, the important thing about any test used when you’re doing an evaluation in forensics is to make sure that the person is responding accurately. And this test does that by not just asking people whether they have a symptom but asking follow-up questions that draw out very detailed accounts of every single symptom of PTSD. And when you’re really familiar with this disorder, which you need to be to administer this test, there are nuances in the way a person will describe their symptoms that have been shown repeatedly to indicate exaggeration or faking. There are also indications when somebody is clearly giving you a genuine response.
A narrative is woven which implies Heard’s answers are performative:
Dr. Shannon Curry: So, there are 20 core symptoms that somebody can manifest with PTSD. You don’t have to have all of them. Ms. Heard initially said that she had….in the first question, you say, “Do you ever have this?” before you get to the more nuanced follow-up questions. When I asked that first question on each item, she initially said, “Yes. I have that” to 19 of the 20 symptoms. That’s not typical even of somebody with the most disabling form of PTSD. When we eventually sort of dialed it down, she had three remaining symptoms. And having symptoms of any disorder is common for all of us. Some of us struggle with sleep, some of us get anxious. It could be several different disorders, it could just be that you have this struggle in your life.
With PTSD dealt with, Depp’s team shifts to providing an alternative explanation:
Mr. Wayne Dennison: All right. In addition to your conclusion that Ms. Heard does not have PTSD, did you make a conclusion with respect to her symptoms?
Dr. Shannon Curry: Yes. Actually, I did. So, you know, just because somebody doesn’t have PTSD doesn’t mean that they weren’t harmed psychologically by whatever is being alleged. [. . .] There was also substantial evidence that this sort of emotional dysregulation, emotional disorganization, the shallowness, the traumatic affect. [. . .] And sure enough, Ms. Heard, in her own self-report, stated to me that when she first got to LA, she was seeking treatment for, in her words, blanket anxiety and depression. She also reported that she was taking medications. In general, none of them were helpful. That’s actually very typical of borderline personality disorder.
Cross examination proceeded with team Heard’s Attorney Bredehoft taking the lead, with a multi-pronged credibility attack. She begins with credentials:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. Curry, you’re not board-certified, correct?
Dr. Shannon Curry: No, I’m not.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Not in clinical psychology or in forensic psychology, correct?
Dr. Shannon Curry: No. I’m a licensed clinical psychologist.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: But you’re not board-certified?
Dr. Shannon Curry: No.
She moves to the hiring process, implying that Dr. Curry and Depp were having an overly casual meeting which included food and alcohol:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. And the dinner lasted approximately three to four hours, correct?
Dr. Shannon Curry: Yes.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And it included drinks…
[. . .]
Dr. Shannon Curry: Yes. Dinner and, I believe, drinks were served.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. And this was before you were hired as an expert, correct?
Dr. Shannon Curry: Yes. This was an interview so that they could make an informed decision as to whether or not to retain me.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And don’t you think that’s a little odd that you’re getting interviewed by Mr. Depp to decide whether you are going to testify adversely against Amber Heard?
Next, she attacks the borderline personality diagnosis, but Dr. Curry is prepared:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Okay. And trauma can cause borderline personality disorders, can’t it?
Dr. Shannon Curry: No.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: Never?
Dr. Shannon Curry: Right now, we know that there are people who have borderline personality disorder who have sustained childhood trauma. There are also people who have borderline personality disorder who have had no childhood trauma. So, like most personality disorders and really like most mental health issues in general, there seems to be both a biological component… In the case with borderline personality disorder, the research tends to support a genetic component and possibly a neurological component. And then there is also possibly an environmental component triggering those genetic markers.
For much of the remainder of cross, Ms. Bredehoft goes to great lengths to show a discrepancy between Dr. Curry’s expert report and her answers to questions about having previously represented anyone who, like Depp, was alleging intimate partner violence. They sparred back and forth on the issue, before deadlocking and moving back to the question of having drinks. Ms. Bredehoft repeatedly tried to frame the meeting as having drinks with Depp, while Dr. Curry continued to insist that it was an interview with the legal team.
Typically, expert witnesses do not casually interact with—or even speak with—end clients as expert witnesses typically avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Finally, cross moved to attacking the alternative diagnoses:
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: You said, and I’ll read it. I’ll quote [your expert report]. “Based on the combined results of my interview with Ms. Heard, behavioral observations, psychometric test data, and review of the available records, Ms. Heard demonstrates psychological symptoms of a combined borderline and histrionic personality disorder, BHPD.”
Dr. Shannon Curry: Yes.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: That’s what you wrote in your report as one of your conclusions, correct?
Dr. Shannon Curry: And that’s a DSM-5 diagnosis.
Ms. Elaine Bredehoft: And it did not say that you were diagnosing with a DSM-5 for borderline personality disorder or a histrionic personality disorder. Did it?
Dr. Shannon Curry: That’s what it says in different semantics.
On redirect, Dennison re-focused on differentiating borderline from PTSD:
Dr. Shannon Curry: So, what you see when we’re talking about the personality disorders is there is a very consistent pattern of the aggression, the violence, the irritability. First of all, it’s escalated. But second of all, it occurs when there is either, for the borderline component, a threat of abandonment, a perceived slight, feeling like the person is about to leave you, about to walk away to get some space from an argument. It also occurs, to a more mild extent, but when there’s a loss of attention and a need to manipulate to try to get that attention back. But when somebody has PTSD, that irritability is sort of at a low constant level, or it’s completely random.
Ultimately the jury would find the borderline personality explanation more persuasive than the PTSD diagnosis.
The Aftermath
Depp v. Heard was an extremely complicated case with a lot of moving pieces, dozens of witnesses, and large trial teams. Nevertheless, expert witnesses played an outsized role, with Dr. Curry’s report and testimony presenting Heard as a sufferer of multiple personality disorders, rather than a victim. Meanwhile, Ms. Arnold’s testimony provided a minor, through important reprieve for Heard.
On June 1, 2022, the jury returned a positive verdict for Depp, awarding $10 million in compensatory Damages and $5 million in punitive damages (which were statutorily reduced to $350,000). Heard would appeal this verdict.
On Heard’s $100 million counterclaim, the jury found that Depp’s attorney did defame Heard, and awarded $2 million in damages, none punitive. Depp would appeal this verdict.
Subsequently, the pair would settle their appeals for a $1 million payment from Heard to Depp.
The press was split on whether the decision was correct, with some blaming experts for an unfair verdict, and others praising their performance. Regardless, their impact was undeniable in one of the most public defamation cases in popular culture.
For over 30 years, Round Table Group has been connecting litigators with skilled and qualified expert witnesses. If you are interested in being considered for expert witness opportunities, contact us at 202-908-4500 for more information or sign up now!