Pop superstar Taylor Swift has revealed she was sexually assaulted at one of her concerts in 2013.
According to TMZ, the admission was made by the Bad Blood singer during the screening process for a rape and kidnapping case, with the 26-year-old the judge she would likely be biased toward the accused if placed on the jury because of a civil case she is currently involved in.
The case is against Colorado DJ David Mueller, who Swift alleges groped her backstage ahead of a performance at the Denver Pepsi Center.
Posing for a photo together, Mueller allegedly slipped his hand under Swift’s clothes and groped her bottom.
A document from the civil case explains, “Mueller did not merely brush his hand against Ms Swift while posing for the photograph. He lifted her skirt and groped her.”
Upset and confronted by the alleged assault, Swift is said to have had Mueller removed from the concert almost immediately. He was later fired from his job as a radio presenter and has since attempted to sue Swift for her accusations – to which she is now counter suing.
The case Swift was being considered a potential juror for in Tenessee was an aggravated rape and kidnapping case.
But despite everything, Swift appeared to be in good spirits throughout the day, signing autographs and taking selfies with fellow potential jurors.
If you or anyone you know has experienced sexual assault, help is available by calling 1800Respect or via their website.
Top Comments
Surely you couldn't have a celebrity in a jury in case the other jurors decided to side with them? "I love Taylor, I want to be friends with her, so I should take her side!" I don't think you could be sure the jury's decision was unbiased.
There is a jury foreperson who is responsible to make sure people talk and discuss THEIR reasoning.
And in the US juries can talk openly after the case about what they thought of the case, the evidence, other jurors etc. Any bias would be easily spotted. Whether they do anything is the same as an influential (charismatic) juror or pushy juror who tells the others to hurry up. Influencing does happen but like I said, at least in the US we hear about it. Presumably they would also have legal recourse.
Thanks for the explanation!