“Johnny Depp Attorney Fires Back at Dr. Spiegel During Full Testimony”

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-21

[00:00:04]Sir, I'm >> [music] >> Wayne Denison.

[00:00:06]We haven't met.

[00:00:08]But let me ask you, let's start with [music] what you finished with.

[00:00:12]I'm sorry, one more time?

[00:00:14]Let's start with what you finished [music] with. You understand that the court was twice asked by Ms. Heard's counsel to order a medical exam of Mr. Depp, and [music] those motions were denied.

[00:00:28]I think the the your team told the court you didn't want to have them, and the court [music] ruled on I don't think the court proactively did it. You kind of had motion to them, right? No. When Ms. >> [music] >> Heard's lawyers moved for them and asked for them and did not get them. Isn't that right, sir? If If you're saying that's what happened, my understanding of was that you all did not want him to have undergo one. They petitioned for it, the court said no. [music] Yes, that's what my understanding was. The court said no to ordering Mr. Depp to do the medical [music] exam. Right, as I said, the court did not require it.

[00:01:08]Right. And there was one that was ordered, in fact, [music] right?

[00:01:12]There was All right.

[00:01:15]>> [music] >> The courtroom tension spikes immediately as attorney Wayne Denison presses the witness over [music] failed attempts to force a medical examination of Johnny Depp. What begins as a procedural question quickly turns combative with a witness resisting the framing and repeatedly shifting responsibility back toward [music] Depp's legal team. The exchange becomes awkward and defensive within seconds, setting the tone for a confrontation that feels far more personal than clinical.

[00:01:49]All right, so the last thing you talked about uh was the Goldwater Rule.

[00:01:57]Yes, sir.

[00:01:58]Been around for almost [music] 50 years, right? Uh yeah, I'm 59. It sounds about right. Yeah. And it's been around as a result [music] of a presidential election that you referenced. Yes.

[00:02:12]And who has that rule?

[00:02:14]What organization >> [music] >> uh maintains that rule? The American Psychiatric Association. An association you're a member of.

[00:02:21]>> [music] >> Association that I am a member of, yes.

[00:02:25]Are you a fellow or something? Yes, I am. Okay. So, and this is an ethical rule, right? [music] It is an ethical rule. And yes, and it's ethical they say rule, they say ethical guideline, yes. They're guidelines.

[00:02:37][music] Mhm. And you know that over time the American [music] Psychiatric Association has amended the rule so it's not just about diagnosis, but it's also about [music] professional opinions.

[00:02:55]Could you be more specific say about professional opinion in regard to what?

[00:02:59]Well, let me it Let me read this and see if you're familiar with it.

[00:03:05]It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion about an individual based on publicly available information without conducting an examination.

[00:03:17]That's the rule, right? If you're reading it directly, I will believe you.

[00:03:21]Okay.

[00:03:25]However, a diagnosis is not required for an opinion to be professional. So, my question is it's not just diagnosis that this Goldwater Rule applies [music] to, it's professional opinions.

[00:03:39]So, again, I I will reiterate [music] that that would come down to essentially nullifying witness testimony expert witness [music] testimony without A decades-old psychiatric ethics guideline [music] suddenly becomes the center of the courtroom battle. Denison methodically questions the witness about the Goldwater rule, >> [music] >> forcing him to acknowledge its restrictions on offering professional opinions without direct examination. But instead of giving clean answers, the witness pushes back aggressively, arguing that applying the rule literally would destroy the entire foundation of expert testimony in court. The exchange grows sharper with every response.

[00:04:21]direct evaluation And as we know it didn't happen, [music] but regardless of that, the whole expert witness testimony thing would be >> [music] >> basically rendered null void null and void.

[00:04:33]The rule in fact contemplates that issue, doesn't [music] it, sir?

[00:04:38]The Again, I'm just telling you the answer to the question when you were reading me those statements. I'm telling you [music] the response by the other side who has published this also is that if that was the case, there could be no expert witness testimony in the courtroom. [music] Psychiatrists are ethically prohibited from evaluating [music] individuals without permit without permission >> [music] >> or other authorization such as a court order. That's the rule, right?

[00:05:10]Again, if you're reading that, then I have to believe you're not misrepresenting it.

[00:05:15]And I would come back to you again, then this whole thing on expert we might as well get rid of all the expert witnesses we've had [music] throughout all of time for court proceedings. Because what you're saying is unless court orders it, and that's [music] what you just said or what the APA said, then therefore expert witnesses cannot do an evaluation based on an observation of the medical records. [music] Insurance companies cannot do evaluations solely based on medical records without doctors rendering professional opinions. So at the end of the day, you are essentially saying [music] that unless someone has directly evaluated that this whole medical system we have, [music] this whole legal system we have is null and void. I I'm not saying that >> you are, sir. Yes, you are. Give me a Give me a second. I'll I'll give you more than a second. [music] The argument escalates into a wider attack on the legal and medical systems themselves. As the attorney continues reading ethical standards aloud, the witness becomes visibly frustrated and claims the interpretation would invalidate insurance reviews, forensic psychiatry, >> [music] >> and countless courtroom experts across the country. The witness repeatedly insists the attorney's logic would make modern medical legal practice null and void, transforming a technical ethics debate into a heated courtroom standoff.

[00:06:32]What what I'm saying and what I am reading to you is a rule by your organization that takes into account that there could [music] be court orders that would permit the the exact kind of evaluation that you say I'm eliminating.

[00:06:52]And I I think we're going in circles cuz I think I just said that [music] means expert witness testimony would not be allowed and the branch of forensic psychiatry [music] would be especially hindered and we know the branch of forensic psychiatry does not prohibit that. So, I am a member of the APA. [music] That doesn't necessarily mean every single thing they put in there everybody has to uncategorically agree with cuz clearly [music] that's not the case.

[00:07:19]>> Did you agree in your deposition that the the professional opinions you you rendered were um inconsistent with the Goldwater rule?

[00:07:28]Yeah.

[00:07:29]My first response is inconsis- If we're saying that I If the Goldwater rule says and I very much said that during deposition that the Goldwater rule was made for >> [music] >> presidents and public figures such as that, but regardless of that cuz that's what it was made for. It's not made [music] for Hollywood, but I'll even take that cuz Mr. Depp's a public figure.

[00:07:49]What I'm [music] saying to you is that the Goldwater rule say we cannot do any >> [music] >> expert witness testimony in our field.

[00:07:57]That is exactly what the Goldwater [music] rule is saying based on exactly what you read. And I'm just telling you what you are saying [music] that rule encompasses.

[00:08:08]What I'm asking you, sir, Pressure mounts after the attorney [music] pivots to the witness's own deposition testimony. He asks directly whether the expert's [music] professional opinions violated the ethical standards of the American Psychiatric Association. The witness avoids giving a straightforward answer, instead launching into long explanations about public figures, forensic psychiatry, and the role of expert witnesses. The courtroom exchange becomes increasingly tense as the attorney repeatedly tries to pin down a simple yes or no. [music] Is did you comply with the ethical requirements of the APA >> [music] >> when ref- when rendering the professional opinions that you've rendered today? It is [music] a It is a requirement of the APA. It is not the requirement [music] of the APA.

[00:09:01]Secondarily, secondarily, secondarily, secondarily.

[00:09:06]>> [music] >> Again, in order to not you we we wasted our whole morning cuz of an expert witness before [music] me. There's an expert witness here. Everyone brought in. So, all I'm saying to you that means the whole field of medical legal [music] law is corrupt and unethical for engaging in an act that the APA clearly says we should not do. [music] So, if you're saying that, then the answer is yes, I'm agreeing with that statement.

[00:09:32]You're agreeing that [music] the APA would deem your testimony and your professional opinions rendered [music] unethical.

[00:09:41]I Again, I am saying you are saying that the whole I'm an expert witness. I'm saying as an expert witness and solely as an expert witness the that guideline is permitting that from occurring. I would say then that the whole field of expert witness testimony, again, would be disavowed by what you are quoting in the Goldwater.

[00:10:06]And we know that's not the case cuz if it was, we would not be allowed to do it. And you said the rule was for presidents, right? And That was initially for presidents, yes.

[00:10:15]But and the name of the rule came [music] from that.

[00:10:17]But the rule says it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion >> [music] >> about an individual. That's right, sir.

[00:10:25]It's not just presidents, it's not public figures, it's individuals. The final stretch turns into a direct confrontation over ethics and credibility. The attorney narrows the issue to one question. Did the witness act unethically under psychiatric guidelines? The witness responds by arguing that accepting the attorney's interpretation would condemn entire branches of medicine and managed care as unethical. After several heated interruptions and circular answers, he finally delivers a firm denial, refusing to concede wrongdoing as the courtroom clash abruptly ends. Like the video, subscribe to the channel, and we'll see you in the next video.

[00:11:07]>> [music]