This study explores the application of forensic pragmatics in the courtroom, focusing on violations of the quantity and quality maxims in Amber Heard’s testimony during the 2022 defamation trial filed by Johnny Depp. The purpose of the study is to examine how pragmatic inconsistencies in legal discourse affect the credibility and interpretation of witness statements. This qualitative research employed descriptive analysis, using courtroom Law Crime YouTube data sources. The analysis focused on violations of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The findings reveal that Heard’s responses frequently violated the maxim of quantity by being overly elaborate or under informative, and the maxim of quality through unsubstantiated or ambiguous claims. These patterns reflect discursive strategies that hinder clarity and cooperation in legal contexts. Ultimately, the jury found Amber Heard guilty of defamation, awarding Johnny Depp 10. 35 million in damages. The study concludes that forensic pragmatics provides valuable insight into courtroom communication, supporting more accurate assessments of testimony and enhancing legal decision-making.
Oktiani et al. (Sat,) studied this question.