Last century, there were two trials of the century – the 1925 Scopes Trial and the 1995 O.J. Simpson Trial – and it’s still a toss up which one of those was bigger.
And, now, in this century – which is either the 20th or 21st century depending on who you ask – we are in 2017 and we already have the clear winner for what will no doubt be the uncontested trial of the new century – a trial that will certainly never be rivaled in terms of scope, notoriety and importance before the year 2,100 rolls around, which is when the new century is expected to begin.
If you’ve been underneath a rock and a hard place recently and you wouldn’t even know a turnip wagon from a hole in the ground if it bit you, then perhaps I need to get you caught up on the events leading to the trial: During a radio station meet and greet, the sweet and loveable Taylor Swift was accosted by low-life DJ David Mueller who grabbed one of the mega-star’s buttocks’ cheeks.
Though the case will no doubt eventually end up in the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, and then in the International Court of Justice in The Hague – where the decision will set world precedent for centuries to come – for now, at least, the first foray in the monumental case was decided in a US District Court in Denver, which found in favor of Swift.
Some people – Swift haters all of them no doubt – have said they believe Swift was getting preferential treatment in the trial, which I could see happening since she’s such a wonderful beautiful superstar who’s the embodiment of nothing short of absolute perfection.
Unfortunately, the trial wasn’t being televised so we couldn’t hear Taylor’s testimony or see her on the stand to know exactly how our national sweetheart was being treated by court officials; however, the court transcripts are available, and I will say that for me, personally, after reading through all of the court documents, I found no indication of favorable treatment.
For one thing – something that strikes me as clear evidence of total impartiality on the part of the court – the judge had issued an order that audience members in the courtroom could not bring in Taylor Swift banners or wear Taylor Swift shirts.
Also, after reading the transcripts this week, I could find no evidence of a pro-Taylor bias and I thought I would reprint them here so you could judge for yourselves …
Court Proceedings. NO. COA11-459. Swift v. Mueller. FDC-23198A. US District Court. Denver, Col. Aug. 8, 2017.
Judge (striking the gavel to get order in the rambunctious courtroom): Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as we navigate through the case of Miss Swift versus Mr. Mueller, I am compelled to remind you that you are to be completely impartial. At no time should your decisions be influenced by the fact that the plaintiff is a well-known recording artist. You should not be swayed by Miss Swift’s celebrity status, which has absolutely no relevance in a court of law.
This case is to be determined on the facts alone, void of personality and irregardless of the subjective feelings you may have toward Miss Swift and her music. It is wholly, entirely irrelevant that Miss Swift is a near-magical dreamboat with magnificent hypnotic doe-like Bambi-eyes that are limpid blue pools of pure beauty and love that one can very easily get lost in. Nor should it matter that she has an angelic voice and, amazingly, writes her own songs.
Defense Attorney: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Silence! I’m trying to make a point for your side. Now, everyone, I spoke with Miss Swift in my chambers earlier this morning and I’m thrilled to announce that, before we get started, she has agreed to grace us with a song. If you look under your seats, Taylor has provided you all with glow in the dark bracelets. Bailiff, would you please bring in the guitar and dim the lights for effect …
Attorney: Judge! This is highly inappropriate. Having Miss Swift perform will put my client at a clear disadvantage from the outset.
Judge: Very well, Mr. McFarland. Your point is well taken. After Miss Swift performs, I’ll allow your client the opportunity to sing a song as well.
Judge (slamming gavel down again): Order in the court! Miss Swift would you please proceed.
[At this point, Swift performed her Grammy-winning song White Horse, which was met with a rousing standing ovation from the judge, jury and courtroom attendees. The defendant waived the right to perform a song.]
Attorney: Judge, I believe you are severely confused about the nature of judicial fair play.
Judge: I may be confused but I’m happy, free, confused and lonely at the same time. You, on the other hand, are a nightmare dressed as a daydream. I just hope you remember that today is never too late to be brand-new.
Attorney: OK, now you’re just speaking in lines from Taylor Swift songs.
Judge: Don’t be ridiculous. Why you gotta be so mean?
Attorney: You’re still doing it. Your honor: I object! This is a travesty. If you continue, I’m going to ask for a mistrial.
Judge: Quiet! I knew you were trouble when you walked in the room, knew you were trouble … Oh, oh, trouble, trouble, trouble …
[Later, on cross-examination, Swift is questioned.]
Attorney: Miss Swift, you claim that my client “groped” you, yet no one else at the very crowded promotional event noticed any sign of that. Also, you said nothing about it at the time it supposedly happened and you continued with the meet and greet.
Judge: Objection! I don’t like your tone, counselor. It sounds like you’re trying to imply that Miss Swift has not been honest in her testimony.
Attorney: Yes! Yes I am. That’s exactly what I’m trying to imply. It is my whole point: I am trying to discredit the witness’ testimony on cross-examination. It is something defense attorneys do every day in courtrooms across the country. Also, by the way, judge, I don’t think that legally you can object in trials.
Judge: Listen, I’m a judge; I can do anything I want. I left Starbucks this morning without paying; I drove here at about 150 miles an hour this morning and parked in handicapped zone. And what’s anyone going to do about it? I’m a judge. I’m untouchable.
Now, back to the matter at hand. It is unthinkable that Tay-Tay – uh, I mean, Miss Swift – would ever tell a lie. Why, just look at that sweet face, completely innocent yet somehow simultaneously amazingly seductive.
Taylor would not say if it weren’t true. Are you telling me that those tender succulent red lips could possibly utter words that weren’t true? I don’t think so, counselor. Just do like I am doing and look deeply into those baby blue eyes … (The judge fades into a catatonic trance, and begins drooling profusely.)
Bailiff: Snap out of it, judge. Oh no – he looked directly into Taylor Swift eyes! No mortal man can do that and live. Judge, can you hear me? He’s a goner! No, no! Her beauty must have been too much for his old ticker. Wait, I have an idea: Maybe the warm tender hand of Taylor Swift touching his furrowed brow can save him. Miss Swift, would you please try …
Swift: Of course.
[Swift proceeds to place her hand on the judge’s brow. The judge comes to.]
Bailiff: It’s working! He’s coming back to life! Taylor Swift has saved the judge’s life! It’s a miracle.
[At this point, the entire court room broke into chants of “Hip, Hip, Hooray and then into a loud chorus of “For she’s a jolly good fellow!” That was followed by wild cheers.]
So, anyway, those transcripts give you an idea of how the first few days of the trial went. Like I said, I couldn’t detect any indication of favoritism toward Taylor Swift by the court, but I may not be the best person to ask because I am crazy in love with her.
Listen, for all you Taylor haters who are just jealous because she is perfect in every way, lay off. As for my advice for the Denver jurors: I say the groping DJ deserves nothing less than a life sentence of hard labor.