Skip to main content

The Globe and Mail

Jury finds former radio DJ assaulted Taylor Swift

In this Aug. 10, 2017, file courtroom sketch, pop singer Taylor Swift speaks from the witness stand during a trial in Denver.

Jeff Kandyba/AP

Four years after Taylor Swift tried to handle her groping allegation against a radio station DJ quietly, the pop superstar got a very public victory Monday with a jury's verdict that she hoped would inspire other women.

Jurors in U.S. District Court in Denver deliberated fewer than four hours to find that ex-radio host David Mueller assaulted and battered Swift during a pre-concert meet-and-greet in June 2013. Per Swift's request, jurors awarded her $1 in damages — a sum her attorney, Douglas Baldridge, called "a single symbolic dollar, the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation."

After Monday's verdict, Swift hugged her crying mom and thanked her attorneys "for fighting for me and anyone who feels silenced by a sexual assault, and especially anyone who offered their support throughout this four-year ordeal and two-year-long trial process."

Story continues below advertisement

"My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard," Swift said in a prepared statement, promising to make unspecified donations to groups that help victims of sexual assault.

The six-woman, two-man jury also rejected Mueller's claims that Swift's mother, Andrea Swift, and radio liaison Frank Bell cost him his $150,000-a-year job at country station KYGO-FM, where he was a morning host.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge William Martinez dismissed similar claims against Taylor Swift, ruling Mueller's team failed to offer evidence that the then-23-year-old superstar did anything more than report the incident to her team, including her mother.

Mueller, who was seeking up to $3-million, denied Swift's allegation from the start and maintained his innocence after the verdict.

"I've been trying to clear my name for four years," he said in explaining why he took the singer-songwriter to court. "Civil court is the only option I had. This is the only way that I could be heard."

By the time Swift took the stand Thursday, she was more than angry. She was on a mission to eliminate any doubt about what happened, and she refused to sugarcoat her experience

During an hour of testimony, Swift blasted a low-key characterization by Mueller's attorney, Gabriel McFarland, of what happened. While Mueller testified he never grabbed Swift, she insisted she was groped.

Story continues below advertisement

"He stayed attached to my bare ass-cheek as I lurched away from him," Swift testified.

"It was a definite grab. A very long grab," she added.

Mueller emphatically denied reaching under the pop star's skirt or otherwise touching her inappropriately, insisting he touched only her ribs and may have brushed the outside of her skirt as they awkwardly posed for the picture.

That photo was virtually the only evidence besides the testimony.

In the image shown to jurors during opening statements but not publicly released, Mueller's hand is behind Swift, just below her waist. Both are smiling. Mueller's then-girlfriend is standing on the other side of Swift.

Swift testified that after she was groped, she numbly told Mueller and his girlfriend, "Thank you for coming," and moved on to photos with others waiting in line because she did not want to disappoint them.

Story continues below advertisement

But she said she immediately went to her photographer after the meet-and-greet ended and found the photo of her with Mueller, telling the photographer what happened.

Andrea Swift testified that she asked Bell to call Mueller's employers. They did not call the police to avoid further traumatizing her daughter, she said.

"We absolutely wanted to keep it private. But we didn't want him to get away with it," Andrea Swift testified.

Bell said he emailed the photo to Robert Call, KYGO's general manager, for use in Call's investigation of Mueller. He said he didn't ask that Mueller be fired but that "appropriate action be taken."

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading…

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.