An eight-member jury has ruled in favor of TAYLOR SWIFT’s counter-suit of former KYGO/DENVER personality DAVID MUELLER, finding he did assault and batter the entertainer. As SWIFT’s suit requested, the jury has awarded her $1. Additionally, the jury found that ANDREA SWIFT, the singer’s mother, and FRANK BELL, her radio liaison did not intentionally interfere with MUELLER’s employment.

MUELLER was fired two days after a photo-op backstage at a 2013 SWIFT concert in DENVER, in which she and her team claimed he touched her in an inappropriate manner. MUELLER filed suit, naming TAYLOR SWIFT, her mother ANDREA SWIFT, and her radio laison, FRANK BELL, claiming “intentional interference with contractual obligations,” and “interference with prospective business relations.” He was seeking $3 million in damages. SWIFT fired back with a counter-suit, seeking $1, and vowing that any further damages awarded her will be donated to charity.

Shortly after the verdict, TAYLOR SWIFT released this statement: “I want to thank Judge WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ and the jury for their careful consideration, my attorneys DOUG BALDRIDGE, DANIELLE FOLEY, JAY SCHAUDIES and KATIE WRIGHT 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.

I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this. My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard. Therefore, I will be making donations in the near future to multiple organizations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves.”

The Closing Arguments

A now-famous photo of former KYGO/DENVER morning co-host DAVID MUELLER and TAYLOR SWIFT backstage at 2013 SWIFT concert in DENVER was one of the key points of contention for MUELLER’s attorney, GABE MCFARLAND, during his closing arguments TODAY (8/14) in the WEEK-long civil trial stemming from an alleged groping incident during the photo.

MUELLER is suing SWIFT’s mother, ANDREA, and radio liaison, FRANK BELL, claiming they sought to have him fired after SWIFT said he touched her behind. MUELLER was, in fact, terminated two days after the incident. “The photograph doesn’t show Mr. MUELLER’s hand under her skirt on her rear,” argued MCFARLAND. “There’s inconsistency. Nobody saw what Ms. SWIFT said happened, because it didn’t happen.”

SWIFT’s photographer, STEPHANIE SIMBECK, testified last week about the incident, sharing her immediate reaction to the encounter: “[SWIFT] had an uncomfortable, shocked looked on her face, and I saw his hand grab her ass.” Today (8/14), MCFARLAND called SIMBECK, “the least credible witness,” adding that SIMBECK only said that because she still works for SWIFT and wants to keep her job. Referring again to the photo, MCFARLAND told the jury to look at SWIFT’s face, asking, “Is that the face of a person who just had a strange man grab her butt?” Answering his own query, MCFARLAND said, “That’s the face of someone who is taking a nice photograph.”

Additionally, the $3 million figure that MUELLER is reportedly seeking in damages was made up by SWIFT’s team, says MCFARLAND. He also argued that MUELLER never claimed former KYGO PD EDDIE HASKELL had actually touched SWIFT, referring to HASKELL as an “odd” and “interesting” character. As he closed, MCFARLAND urged the jury to find against ANDREA SWIFT and FRANK BELL, saying “They wanted him fired from his job … They testified that they wanted him fired, and they knew that KYGO was likely to fire him based on the allegation that he went under Ms. SWIFT’s skirt and grabbed her rear.” As a result, said MCFARLAND, MUELLER is entitled to be awarded more than $200,000, based on what he was paid out when fired, what remained on his contract at the time, and endorsements.

SWIFT attorney DOUG BALDRIDGE started his closing remarks by saying MUELLER was not damaged. “It is open, shut, case over,” said BALDRIDGE. There is “no way” MUELLER and his team can meet the burden of proof for tortious interference against BELL and Mrs. SWIFT. “Mr. BELL respected [KYGO GM] Mr. CALL, no one disputes that. And, he put it in Mr. CALL’s prerogative as to what to do,” said BALDRIDGE.

Noting that MCFARLAND attacked witnesses for SWIFT, specifically SIMBECK and her former bodyguard, BALDRIDGE continued, “It’s not even a close call on credibility.” He stressed that numerous people supporting SWIFT’s claim of inappropriate touching have not changed their story in the four years since the incident. Meanwhile, he said, MUELLER has changed his story. Reiterating that there was “no doubt” SWIFT was the victim of unwanted physical contact, he appealed to the jury to rule in SWIFT’s favor for her counter-suit, saying, “The single dollar I ask you to award her … is of immeasurable value. It means ‘no means no.’ And, it tells every woman that they will determine what is tolerated with their body.”

The jury received instructions from Judge MARTINEZ following both closing arguments. If they don’t reach a decision by 5pm (MT) TODAY (8/14), they’ll be sent home for the day and ordere