Tuesday, a seven-person civil jury in Virginia will resume deliberations in the libel suit between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. The jury's verdict will differ significantly from the public discourse surrounding the high-profile hearings.

Six weeks of the testimony centered on the alleged abuse Heard claims to have undergone at the hands of Depp. Heard has detailed more than a dozen instances in which she claims Depp abused her.

Depp has denied any physical or sexual assault, claiming that Heard fabricated the allegations to ruin his reputation. The vast majority of Depp's online admirers are specific that Heard has been untruthful and that this will influence the decision.

However, the lawsuit itself is one of defamation. Depp filed a $50 million libel lawsuit against Heard in Fairfax County Circuit Court over an opinion piece she published in The Washington Post in December 2018. She described herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse."

This piece never even names Depp by name, yet his attorneys claim he was nevertheless defamed. The majority of the essay analyzes public policy about domestic violence, and Heard's attorneys assert she has the right to comment under the First Amendment.

However, in closing arguments, Depp's attorney, Camille Vasquez, contended that Heard's right to free expression is limited.

She stated that the First Amendment does not shield harmful and defamatory lies.

According to Depp's attorneys, two sentences in the piece relate to him.

In the first excerpt, Heard says, "I felt the full force of our culture's wrath when I became a public figure representing domestic abuse two years ago." Given that Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic abuse in 2016 — two years before she published the piece — Depp's attorneys consider this a reference to Depp.

In a second passage, she writes, "I had the rare opportunity to observe institutions protecting men accused of abuse in real time." (Depp's attorneys are also demanding compensation for a headline that ran above the online version of the article despite not being written by Heard.)

The jury, which must reach a majority finding, must determine whether those sections in the Post constitute defamation. The verdict form provides detailed instructions on how to resolve this.

According to Heard's attorneys, they have produced evidence indicating she was mistreated. However, they argue that even if the jury decided that she was never assaulted, she should still triumph in the claim.

Because libel law specifies various considerations, this is the case. First, the allegedly defamatory words must be directed toward the plaintiff. According to Heard's attorneys, the piece has nothing to do with Depp. They claim that the focus is on Heard's experience with the consequences of speaking out. Her attorneys argue that these claims are objectively true even if she was not molested.

However, Depp's attorneys assert that the two paragraphs are unmistakable references to Depp, considering the media attention surrounding their 2016 divorce proceedings.

Moreover, because Depp is a public person, Heard can only be found guilty of libel if the jury determines that she behaved with "actual malice," which requires clear and persuasive proof that she either knew what she was writing was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

During Friday's closing statements, Heard's attorney, J. Benjamin Rottenborn, stated that Heard meticulously examined drafts of the piece with her attorneys to ensure that they met legal requirements. The first draft was not authored by Heard but by the American Civil Liberties Union. The fact alone, according to Rottenborn, is sufficient evidence that she did not behave maliciously.

As for the abuse itself, Depp's attorneys attempted to convince the jury that if they believed Heard was lying or exaggerating any of her abuse claims, she could not be accepted. All of her abuse claims must be disregarded as unreliable.

"You either believe everything or nothing," Vasquez stated. Either she is the victim of nasty, horrible abuse, or she is a woman who will say anything.

In Heard's final argument, Rottenborn said that the nitpicking over Heard's proof of abuse misses the overwhelming evidence in her favor and sends a terrible message to domestic violence victims.

"If you didn't photograph it, it didn't happen," stated Rottenborn. "If you took photographs, they are bogus. If you did not inform your buddies, then they are lying. If you told your pals, they are also involved in the fraud."

And he rejected Vasquez's assertion that the jury must overlook everything Heard says if they believe she exaggerates a single act of abuse. He stated that Depp's libel claim must fail if Heard experienced even one instance of abuse.

"They are trying to convince you that Amber must be perfect to win," Rottenborn explained.