He Said, She Said: Who Gaslighted Whom? Decoding DARVO in the Depp v. Heard Trial and the Impact of Social Media on Jury Trial Voting

During the 2022—public and salacious—trial between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard for defamation, nearly 3.5 million viewers watched live while the verdict was read. Over the course of the six-week trial, public interest translated to nearly 84 million hours of viewing on YouTube alone.[1] Social media engagement (i.e., number of posts, likes, and comments) on the trial was significantly high, especially on Instagram and Twitter (now X). During the trial, fans launched the hashtag #WeAreWithYouJohnnyDepp, and the majority of the posts, likes, and replies attacked Heard’s credibility. The various social media channels and posts drew attention and support to Depp’s allegations that Heard had fabricated the abuse claims to advance her own career and trash his. During the trial, Heard faced backlash and harassment online, and after she lost the trial, she faced embarrassment and a multimillion-dollar judgment against her.

Some media and legal experts have also pointed to social media platforms and the DARVO strategy used by Depp’s legal team as the main reasons Depp was able to prevail in the trial.[2] DARVO is an acronym for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

DARVO refers to a strategy in which perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly abusive offenders, deny their behavior, attack the individual confronting them, and reverse the roles of victim and offender, resulting in the appearance that the alleged offender was not the offender and instead was the victim. DARVO has been shown to be effective both when the alleged victim was lying or, in the worst instance, if the alleged victim was telling the truth. When the DARVO strategy works, the alleged perpetrator gets away with the crime they committed or the damage they wrought. No study has confirmed that the DARVO strategy was used by either party in Depp v. Heard. However, some of Depp’s supporters on social media displayed behavior consistent with DARVO, such as denying Heard’s allegations and attacking her credibility. Depp received broad public sympathy and support on social media despite Amber Heard’s accusations of domestic abuse against him.[3] This reaction is not uncommon in high-profile abuse cases, as well as the public’s tendency to jump to conclusions before all the facts are known.

After the trial, Heard explained that the public reaction on social media created bias in the trial and impacted the verdict.[4] She claimed that she faced public backlash and online attacks since accusing Depp of domestic abuse. She described how social media played a role in spreading false narratives about the violence and abuse she suffered and undermined her credibility as a victim. However, both of Depp’s attorneys claimed social media had no impact on the trial verdict.[5] Ben Chew (a member of Depp’s legal team) dismissed claims from Heard’s attorneys that the social media circus surrounding the case could have influenced the outcome. Nonetheless, throughout the six-week trial, TikTok was flooded with video clips of the courtroom drama, memes, and conspiracies about the case and Amber Heard’s supposed lies. The posts were skewed in favor of Depp but claimed to find no support for the claims of Heard’s attorneys that the jury was swayed by social media.[6] As Camille Vasquez, another Depp attorney, pointed out, the jurors were instructed not to view social media, and nothing suggests they ignored those instructions.

The present study addresses the problem of how social media can have a significant impact on the public’s perception and influence outcomes with juries. Research has established a correlation between jury members accessing social media and trial verdicts. The Eve and Zuckerman study, Ensuring an Impartial Jury in the Age of Social Media, examines the growing challenges social media poses to maintaining an impartial jury, with jurors using platforms like Facebook and Twitter to discuss cases during trials.[7] The study highlights juror misconduct, such as a death sentence being reversed due to a juror's tweet; and advocates for stronger judicial oversight, with clearer instructions to jurors, to prevent such occurrences. Additionally, the American Journal of Criminal Justice features findings that social media refers to internet-based media platforms that are utilized for social networking, information sharing, and current event updates (i.e., X—formerly Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, LinkedIn, and TikTok).[8] Evidence in the literature reviewed for this study highlights that while jurors may claim they are not being influenced by social media posts, the social media posts they are viewing and the decisions they make at a jury trial are correlated. An investigation into this correlation could help mitigate damage from social media influence on jury trial verdicts.

With the ever-increasing reach and influence of social media, research that can elucidate social media strategies for litigation is much needed. Toward the goal of better understanding social media, DARVO, and the potential impact of social media on litigation, the following literature review was completed to further this study.

Methods

For this study, literature was reviewed on the topics related to the Depp–Heard trial, DARVO, and intimate partner violence (IPV). The topics were deemed relevant to the study because they related to media, social media, public opinions, and the possibility of jurors being swayed by social media. The following is a summary of the literature reviewed.

Results

Studies on the Depp v. Heard Trial, DARVO, and Intimate Partner Violence

Maiorescu conducted a cross-cultural analysis of Twitter posts in the aftermath of Johnny Depp being accused of domestic violence and, in turn, him accusing Amber Heard of the same.[9] The study assessed Twitter posts relating to the trial and discussed how public relations and celebrity scandals are managed in a cross-cultural context. The findings provided insight into how different cultures deal with personal public relations (PPR) and celebrity scandals. Specifically, Maiorescu used cross-cultural analysis to compare the use of PPR and Twitter in the US and Romania.[10] The findings suggested that while PPR is generally effective in managing celebrity scandals, Twitter can be a double-edged sword. In the United States, Twitter (now known as “X”), was used primarily to disseminate information and build support for celebrities. In Romania, however, Twitter was used more to spread rumors and gossip, which can ultimately damage a celebrity’s reputation. Maiorescu suggested that while PPR and Twitter can both be useful tools for managing celebrity scandals, they can also backfire.[11]

Silva examined the perception of witness or victim credibility in the context of IPV allegations.[12] Silva explained that accurate analysis of witness credibility is harder to accomplish and more essential in the absence of conclusive evidence or when the alleged perpetrator denies the accusations and has no known history of interpersonal violence. Silva proposed the use of a new framework and structured method they developed, which demonstrated how a conclusion about the credibility of an alleged victim of IPV can contrast with the conclusion produced by a trial judge.

Whiting et al. conducted a content analysis of social media comments on online platforms that involved IPV and blame.[13] They discussed how social media had become a ubiquitous form of interacting and sharing information. They further explained that comments on social media sites are often aggressive and contemptuous, especially when topics are controversial. For example, discussion of IPV tends to provoke strong reactions from outsiders, who make angry or blaming remarks about those involved. Although IPV is common, it has not been widely discussed in popular media until recent years, when high-profile cases of abuse have come to light.

In 2016, a celebrity accusation of domestic violence led to thousands of comments on social media, with outsiders weighing in about who was at fault and what should be done. Whiting et al. conducted a content analysis of 400 of these comments with the intent of elucidating typical types of social media reactions to domestic violence accusations.[14] Key themes included judgment and blame, with approximately 37% of commenters blaming the supposed victim in the case, whereas only 9% blamed the alleged perpetrator. Their findings showed how people comment on domestic violence and illustrated the contentious and often distorted nature of social media interactions. They also discussed implications for professionals and researchers.

Harsey and Freyd explored how survivors of assault often face defamation from their attacker, anchored on the concept of DARVO.[15] This behavior is frequently used by perpetrators to gaslight their victims, make them doubt their own experiences, and ultimately discredit them, making it difficult for survivors to come forward and seek help. Harsey and Freyd noted the need for awareness of this behavior to better support survivors of assault.[16] The term DARVO was coined by Freyd in 1997 to describe a common response strategy of perpetrators of violence: the perpetrator “denies” having done anything wrong, then “attacks” the credibility of the victim, and finally “reverses” the roles of victim and offender by portraying themselves as the victim. DARVO can have a significant impact on survivors, who fear not being believed or doubt their own memories.

The recurring themes and key concepts in the reviewed literature in this section include the impacts of social media on courtroom proceedings, as well as the conduct of DARVO strategies on social media.

Conclusion

The studies included in the review examined DARVO, jury trials, reputation management, IPV, and the impact of social media on influencing viewers and actions. The key findings of this literature review indicated that illicit and salacious methods are used on social media to trick viewers into changing their beliefs with respect to how they vote on juries.

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the concerning potential for social media and DARVO to manipulate public opinion and influence legal proceedings. Ultimately, fostering media literacy and promoting responsible social media practices are crucial steps in mitigating the spread of misinformation and ensuring fair trials. The public must be empowered to critically evaluate online information—this can safeguard public discourse and ensure a more just and informed society. This is even more important now than ever with the advent of generative artificial intelligence.

[1] Penny & Associates, https://www.penneylawyers.com/news/a-defamation-case-to-remember-statistics-from-the-record-breaking-depp-v-heard-trial/ (last visited Nov. 27, 2024).

[2] Sarah J. Harsey & Jennifer J. Freyd, Defamation and DARVO, 23(5) J. of Trauma & Dissociation 481(2022).

[3] Anastasia Tsiloucas & Ayesha Rascoe, On social media, Johnny Depp is winning public sympathy over Amber Heard (May 23, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100685712/on-social-media- johnny-depp-is-winning-public-sympathy.

[4] Ramon A. Vargas, Amber Heard calls out ‘unfair’ role of social media in Johnny Depp case (June 13, 2022, at 9:47 ET), https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jun/13/amber-heard-johnny-depp-social-media-interview.

[5] Rachel Sharp, Johnny Depp’s attorney claims social media ‘played no role whatsoever’ in jury’s verdict in Amber Heard trial (June 8, 2022, 13:45 BST), https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnny-depp-social-media-verdict-amber-heard-b2096542.html.

[6] Id.

[7] Amy J. St. Eve & Michael A. Zuckerman, Ensuring an impartial jury in the age of social media,11 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1 (2012).

[8] Paula Hannaford-Agor. Juror and jury use of new media: A baseline exploration, 37(3) Am. J.Crim. Just. 313 (2012).

[9] Roxana D. Maiorescu, Personal public relations and celebrity scandals: A cross-cultural analysis of Twitter communication in the aftermath of Johnny Depp’s accusations of domestic violence, 21(3) J. of Commc’n Mgmt. 254 (2017).

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Teresa C. Silva, Assessment of credibility of testimony in alleged intimate partner violence: A case report, 22(1) J. of Forensic Psych. Rsch. & Prac. 58 (2022).

[13] Jason Whiting, Rachel D. Olufuwote, Jacyln D. Cravens-Pickens & Alyssa B. Witting, Online blaming and intimate partner violence: a content analysis of social media comments, 24(1) Qualitative Report 78 (2019).

[14] Id.

[15] Sarah J. Harsey & Jennifer J. Freyd, Defamation and DARVO, 23(5) J. of Trauma & Dissociation 481(2022).

[16] Id.