It's the trial that has everybody talking.

Actor Johnny Depp is suing his ex-wife Amber Heard for libel over a 2018 op-ed piece she wrote in The Washington Post about her being a victim of domestic abuse.

The piece does not name Depp, but his attorneys say the implications are defamatory, and he claims her allegations cost him his career, as Disney dropped him from the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise just days after the article was published.

Depp concluded his testimony in the $50 million defamation lawsuit against Heard.

He said he filed the lawsuit against Heard because it was his best chance to reclaim his reputation.

While on the witness stand, Depp spoke about Heard demeaning him and sometimes slapping or shoving him.

She has accused him of physically and sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions.

Depp calls those accusations "false and heinous."

Heard said the actor first assaulted her in 2013 when he slapped her for making fun of his "Wino Forever" tattoo.

Depp told jurors in a Fairfax, Virginia, courtroom about his rough childhood, his rise to fame, and what his relationship with Heard was like after meeting her in 2011.

The couple went on to get married in 2015, only to divorce a year later.

Although social media says he has already won, will the jury side with him?

Criminal Defense and Entertainment Attorney, Darryl Cohen, talks to Newsy and explains what to expect when Heard takes the stand next week as the first witness for her defense.  

Newsy is the nation’s only free 24/7 national news network. You can find Newsy using your TV’s digital antenna or stream for free. See all the ways you can watch Newsy here: https://bit.ly/Newsy1

An appeals court has tossed out former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's $95 million defamation lawsuit he filed against comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

The Associated Press reported that the three judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of Baron Cohen on Thursday.

The former Senate candidate sued Cohen for a joke the comedian made at Moore's expense in a segment on the Showtime program "Who is America?" in 2018.

The judges said the politician had signed a waiver before his appearance that he would bar him from filing a claim of defamation against the comedian, CNN reported.

In the segment, Cohen presented a so-called pedophile detector during his interview with Moore, which beeped when it got near the Alabama politician.

The judges said that the segment was “clearly comedy” and that viewers would see it as such, the news outlet reported.

Attorneys for Johnny Depp have asked a Virginia judge to deny Amber Heard's post-trial motions asking for a mistrial, calling the legal arguments "frivolous."

Heard and Depp were both found liable for defamation in their lawsuits against each other last month. The jury initially awarded $15 million in damages to Depp and only $2 million to Heard. Though, because punitive damages in the state of Virginia are capped at $350,000, the judge reduced Depp's $5 million in punitive damages to that amount.

Attorneys for Heard asked the court to declare a mistrial and order a new trial in a motion filed last week.

Depp's attorneys argued in a memo filed Monday that a judge cannot arbitrarily substitute their judgment for that of a jury.

The memo also said Heard's contention that the damages awarded to her ex-husband are excessive and unsupported by the evidence is "baseless."

"While Ms. Heard slings an exceptional amount of mud at the wall in the hope that something might stick, the jury's verdict on damages was perfectly reasonable and supported by the evidence and testimony in this case," Depp's legal team states in the memo.

Attorneys for Heard also claimed in a court filing last week that the information on the jury panel list sent to counsel ahead of trial does not appear to match the demographics of one of the jurors, compromising Heard's rights to due process.

Heard waived her right to challenge the accuracy of the jury panel information because her team didn't raise the issue with the court at the time, Depp's attorneys argue.

"Mr. Depp respectfully requests that this Court deny Ms. Heard's frivolous motion in its entirety and reject her outlandish requests to set aside the jury verdict, dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, order a new trial and investigate Juror 15," the memo says.

Depp sued Heard for defamation over a 2018 op-ed she wrote for The Washington Post in which she described herself as a "public figure representing domestic abuse." Though Depp was not named in the article, he claimed it cost him lucrative acting roles.

Heard countersued Depp, to whom she was married from 2015-2016 before divorcing, for defamation over statements Depp's attorney made about her abuse claims.

After several weeks of testimony, the jury found that Heard defamed Depp in three separate statements in The Washington Post piece, and that Depp defamed Heard with one statement his attorney made.

A Virginia judge on Wednesday rejected an effort by actress Amber Heard to set aside the $10 million judgment awarded against her in favor of her ex-husband, Johnny Depp.

Depp won a defamation suit against Heard last month in a high-profile civil trial. Heard won a smaller, $2 million judgment on a counterclaim she filed against Depp.

Earlier this month, Heard filed a motion seeking to have Depp’s verdict set aside, or have a mistrial declared. Her lawyers cited multiple factors, including an apparent case of mistaken identity with one of the jurors.

In a written order, Judge Penney Azcarate rejected all of Heard’s claims and said the juror issue specifically was irrelevant and that Heard can’t show she was prejudiced.

“The juror was vetted, sat for the entire jury, deliberated, and reached a verdict. The only evidence before this Court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the Court’s instructions, and orders. This Court is bound by the competent decision of the jury,” Azcarate wrote.

Depp sued for $50 million in Fairfax County after Heard wrote a 2018 op-ed piece in The Washington Post about domestic violence in which she referred to herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The article never mentioned Depp by name, but his lawyers said several passages in the article defamed him by implication by referring to highly publicized abuse allegations she made in 2016 as she filed for divorce.

Heard then filed a $100 million counterclaim, also for defamation. By the time the case went to trial, her counterclaim had been whittled down to a few statements made by one of Depp’s lawyers, who called Heard’s abuse allegations a hoax.

The jury awarded $15 million to Depp and $2 million to Heard on her counterclaim. The $15 million judgment was reduced to $10.35 million because Virginia law caps punitive damages at $350,000.

The judge did not spell out the rationale for rejecting Heard's other claims in Wednesday's order.

Among other things, Heard argued that the $10 million verdict is unsupported by the facts, and seems to demonstrate that jurors failed to focus on the fallout from the 2018 op-ed piece — as they were supposed to do — and instead just looked broadly at the damage Depp’s reputation suffered as a result of the alleged abuse.

Heard’s lawyers also argued argue that the verdicts for Depp on one hand and Heard on the other are fundamentally nonsensical.

“The jury’s dueling verdicts are inconsistent and irreconcilable,” her lawyers, Elaine Bredehoft and Benjamin Rottenborn, wrote.

Heard's lawyers also challenged the verdict on the basis that one of the seven jurors who decided the case was never summoned for jury duty. According to court papers, a 77-year-old county resident received a jury summons. But the man’s son, who has the same name and lives at the same address, responded to the summons and served in his stead.

Heard’s lawyers argued that Virginia law is strict about juror identities, and the case of mistaken identity is grounds for a mistrial. They presented no evidence that the 52-year-old son, identified in court papers only as Juror #15, purposefully or insidiously sought to replace his father, but they argue that possibility should not be discounted.

“The Court cannot assume, as Mr. Depp asks it to, that Juror 15’s apparently improper service was an innocent mistake. It could have been an intentional attempt to serve on the jury of a high-profile case,” Heard’s lawyers wrote.

Heard still has the ability to appeal the verdict to the Virginia Court of Appeals. The issues presented to the appellate court could well be different from the issues Azcarate rejected Wednesday.

In a separate order, the judge ordered that dozens of court documents be unsealed, including motions seeking to compel independent medical examinations of both Depp and Heard. A handful of documents will remain sealed, mostly because they contain personal contact information or personal medical information.

“In this matter, both litigants sued one another, thereby opening themselves up to the public forum of a jury trial. Court records are public information," Azcarate wrote.

Donald Trump has sued E. Jean Carroll for defamation after a jury found he sexually abused the former magazine columnist and defamed her.

In a counter claim filed Tuesday night, Trump alleges that Carroll defamed him when she appeared on CNN the morning after the jury awarded her $5 million in damages. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her as she alleged. Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did.”

In response to the new claim, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement, “Donald Trump again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.”

She added, “Trump’s filing is thus nothing more than his latest effort to delay accountability for what a jury has already found to be his defamation of E. Jean Carroll. But whether he likes it or not, that accountability is coming very soon.

Video below: How key piece of Trump deposition likely led jury to find him liable of sexual abuse

The counter claim is the latest legal salvo in a multi-year legal battle between Trump and Carroll. Carroll first sued Trump for defamation in 2019 after he denied her allegation that he raped her in the mid-1990s in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman. Trump said he didn’t know Carroll and that she wasn’t his type.

She sued him again last year under a New York law that allowed a one-year window for civil lawsuits for survivors of sexual assault no matter when they occurred. Trump has moved for a new trial.

The 2019 defamation lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial next year, although there are still several legal issues outstanding. Carroll is seeking more than $10 million in damages in that case in part because Trump repeated statements the jury found to be defamatory after the verdict on social media and at a CNN town hall.

The Milan fashion house Dolce&Gabbana has filed a multimillion-dollar defamation suit in an Italian court against U.S. fashion bloggers who reposted anti-Asian comments attributed to one of the designers that led to a boycott by Asian consumers.

The suit was filed in Milan civil court in 2019, but only became public this week when the bloggers posted about it on their Instagram account, Diet Prada. Their feed is widely followed in the fashion world for its cutting commentary on unoriginality in designs and on social issues.

“This whole case is a way of trying to silence Diet Prada, and to silence Tony (Liu) and Lindsay (Schuyler) personally,’’ said Susan Scafidi, director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School, which is coordinating the bloggers' defense.

Lawyers for Dolce&Gabbana reached by the AP declined to comment on the case.

The case dates back to November 2018, when Dolce&Gabbana faced a boycott in Asia after outrage over what were seen as culturally insensitive videos promoting a major runway show in Shanghai and subsequent posts of insulting comments in a private Instagram chat.

The show was canceled in the backlash, which included retailers pulling Dolce&Gabbana merchandise and Asian VIPs disavowing the brand.

Designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana initially said that Gabbana’s account had been hacked. The two later appeared in a video apologizing to the Chinese people.

“A public apology and a quiet lawsuit really cancel each other out in my mind,’’ Safidi told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Italian defense attorneys filed a brief this week in Milan civil court, arguing that Italy is not the correct venue for the case, given that the blog is produced in the United States and the alleged damages occurred in Asia.

File video: Dolce&Gabbana receives backlash after ad campaign

The fashion house is seeking damages totaling more than half a billion euros, Scafidi said.

She said the fashion house is seeking 450 million euros spent to restore brand image since 2018 and damages of 3 million euros for the company and 1 million for Gabbana, to whom the remarks were attributed. The suit also seeks more than 8.6 million euros for the cancellation of the Shanghai show, another 8.6 million euros for staff expenditures and 89.6 million euros for lost Asian sales from November 2018-March 2019.

Since going public, Diet Prada, which has over 2.5 million Instagram followers, has raised more than $38,000 for its defense.

In a statement, Liu and Schuyler both said they would not allow their platform, which has also been vocal about the #MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter and recent attacks on Asians in the United States, to be silenced by lawsuits.

“Diet Prada will continue to be a platform to elevate these crucial issues,” Liu said.

Schuyler called on “public figures and brands to respond to public opinion and media critiques with progressive action, not lawsuits."