Amber Heard answered many questions from John Depp's legal team over pictures in which she looked healthy and unharmed after allegedly getting assaulted by her then-husband, Depp.

In a video shown in court, Heard appeared on The Late Night Show with James Corden, seemingly unharmed. She made the television appearance in December 2015, and there wasn't even the slightest evidence that there was a bruise on her face.

According to a defamation lawyer, Heard should be concerned about the potential criminal ramifications of her dishonest testimony.

The legal expert has warned that Heard could do time if charged with doctoring evidence.

Aaron Minc, a defamation lawyer, told the media that he did not think there was any chance that Heard could face prosecution for what she had said during her testimony in court during Depp's defamation trial. However, as the case proceeded, he believed that it was very likely that she might be charged for the lies she told.

Aaron pointed out that as the case progressed, it was evident from more objective evidence that she was lying under oath, which crosses the line and makes it seem like she is fabricating evidence, photos, bruises, and submitting altered evidence.

Last week, Depp's legal team questioned Bryan Neumeister, a digital forensic expert, on the authenticity of the pictures that showed Heard with bruises on her face.

Eventually, the expert claimed that there was "no way for any forensic expert" to prove the authenticity of the photos.

When he was asked if any of the photos had been intentionally altered, the forensic expert said he was simply saying that the photographs had been modified.

A big part of Heard's argument is based on allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Depp. Her ex-husband is suing her for $50 million due to a 2018 op-ed she wrote implying that he was abusive towards her.

She decided to countersue for $100 million.

As Neumeister spoke about one of the photos showing the alleged injuries Heard suffered, he said that the photo had "many versions," which differed in physical size and file size.

He also mentioned that the photo had been through photo-editing programs.

In court, three different versions of the photo were shown, and Neumeister commented, saying that the images had to go through some form of transformation to change sizes.

The legal expert believes modifying evidence is "very serious" and "offensive" to the legal system.

While admitting that people told lies "all the time" in civil hearings, fabricating physical evidence about serious criminal allegations constitutes a different level of deception.

Aaron hopes that prosecutors will take a closer look at the issue because evidence strongly suggests that she doctored evidence.

The legal expert did not say there was conclusive proof that Heard had made up evidence. He was only pointing out that if it was proven that she fabricated evidence, she might face criminal prosecution or even spend time in jail.

During the case, Vasquez claimed that Heard had bruises on her face when she walked out of court after filing a restraining order against Depp, but she did not have any bruises on her in pictures taken the following night.

Depp's lawyer went on to say that there was no "mountain of evidence" showing that Depp had abused Heard. Instead, there was just a mountain of "unproven allegations" which were wild, "over-the-top," and implausible.

Vasquez pointed out that it was impossible to pick and choose which of her allegations were believable and which accusations were not, you had to "believe it all or not."

She suggested that Heard had made up a horrific tale of abuse about the incident in Australia.

Earlier, legal experts have suggested that Heard might be subjected to a police investigation for perjury after she admitted that she did not fulfill her promise of donating $3.5 million from her divorce to charity despite saying in court that she had.

When someone is found guilty of perjury under federal law, they could spend up to five years in prison and get fined. However, legal experts claim that perjury is not easy to prosecute because you also have to prove that the person knew that they were lying with absolute certainty.