Judge Sets Steven Tyler Sex Assault Trial Date

Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler’s long-running sexual abuse lawsuit is set to go to trial on May 3, 2024, before a newly assigned judge in Los Angeles. Judge Lawrence Riff, who took over from Judge Patricia Young after her recusal in September 2023, has pledged to see the case through completion and is prepared to reevaluate earlier judicial decisions made by his predecessor.

Tyler faces allegations from Julia Misley, who claims he sexually abused her starting in 1973, when she was a high school sophomore, in a relationship that spanned several years and multiple states. The claims have been contested vigorously, with Tyler’s defense asserting that Massachusetts law, where he lived with Misley, applies and that the age of consent there was 16.

Judge Young withdrew from the case shortly before a previously scheduled trial date due to a potential conflict arising from discussions she had with another disqualified judge. This development has complicated pretrial proceedings, prompting Judge Riff to offer both parties the opportunity to request a review or dismissal of any rulings made by Young during her assignment.

Among the contested decisions is a key summary adjudication ruling that dismissed Misley’s claims related to alleged incidents in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. These rulings left only the California-related allegations intact. Misley’s legal team has indicated plans to challenge this ruling, seeking to reinstate some dismissed claims without threatening the remainder of their case.

Judge Riff stated he would base reconsideration of previous orders on already submitted arguments, without allowing new filings, aiming to avoid unnecessary prolongation of pretrial motions despite acknowledging increased legal expenses.

Misley’s attorneys argue that Tyler violated Massachusetts law by administering drugs before sex and by assuming guardianship in name only to facilitate illegal sexual relations, despite the state’s age of consent being 16. They contend that Tyler’s 2011 memoir triggered realizations by Misley about the trauma she endured, providing grounds to overcome statutes of limitations. Tyler’s defense counters that she was aware of the alleged conduct at all times, thus barring the claims due to elapsed deadlines.

Tyler’s lead counsel has insisted there is no evidence that Judge Young consulted the disqualified judge on rulings dismissing out-of-state claims, limiting such consultations to evidentiary matters shortly before Young’s recusal. Misley’s team disagrees, suggesting ambiguity exists that requires judicial fact-finding, though Judge Riff declined to pursue discussions directly with Young without both parties’ presence.

The upcoming trial promises to focus on the allegations centered in California, including claims that Tyler forcibly involved Misley in sexual acts during a concert tour and awards show events. Misley alleges she was groomed into a three-year relationship, with incidents spanning Oregon and Washington, where the age of consent was 18 at the time.

Tyler’s memoir recounts aspects of the relationship, including a guardianship arrangement signed by Misley’s parents and sexual encounters in various locations, some of which parallel the claims made by Misley. The memoir describes an incident in a Beverly Hills hotel elevator after sex in a hot tub, which Misley has also cited.

The lawsuit is filed under the California Child Victims Act of 2019, which temporarily reopened the window for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to bring legal claims that would otherwise be barred by statutes of limitations. This legislation is a central legal foundation for Misley’s case, allowing her to seek redress decades after the alleged conduct.

Judge Riff has set a deadline of November 20, 2023, for either side to request a review of any of Judge Young’s rulings, with an assurance that any such requests will be granted and reconsidered by him. He anticipates holding a hearing in January 2024 to revisit the summary adjudication decision that significantly narrowed the scope of Misley’s claims.

The court’s handling of evidentiary rulings will also be reset, including previous permissions for the plaintiff to present evidence that Tyler acted as her guardian and the controversial allowance for jurors to consider evidence of alleged consent, which Judge Riff has indicated will be reconsidered.

This proceeding places Tyler’s legal and public standing under renewed scrutiny, potentially affecting his ongoing career activities. Given the trial’s timing and scope, it may impact promotional efforts and touring plans, especially as the case draws widespread attention amid ongoing cultural conversations about accountability and abuse within the music industry.

The complex jurisdictional issues raised—such as which state’s laws govern various incidents and how statutes of limitations apply—highlight the difficulties in adjudicating decades-old allegations spanning multiple locations. Legal experts and observers will watch closely how Judge Riff navigates these challenges while adhering to procedural fairness and transparency in this high-profile case.