Brown’s legal team argued that the mention of his past legal battle could unfairly sway the jury.
Chris Brown wants no mention of his previous legal troubles, specifically his Rihanna assault case, in his latest lawsuit.
According to the motion reviewed by WBLS, Brown’s lawyers called any mention of the assault “improper, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial.” Furthermore, they say that the case, which occurred around 17 years ago, is not relevant to the civil trial, which concerns Brown’s proposed liability for the dog attack.
Instead, Brown wants jurors to focus on the facts regarding this particular case and not let his past assault issues sway their view on the matter. However, the plaintiff, Maria Avila, and her legal team have argued otherwise. Brown pled guilty to the felony assault charge against the Barbadian singer, for which he received five years’ probation, community service, and entrance to a year-long domestic violence program.
In her complaint, Avila claimed the attack not only caused severe injuries, but also emotional distress as she seeks damages. Her attorneys also state that Brown’s legal history is crucial to their argument, sharing that it helps establish a pattern over the 36-year-old’s conduct and credibility. Furthermore, she called his request for the blanket ban “overbroad, premature, and legally incorrect,” as confirmed in the filing obtained by Rolling Stone.
Brown intends to challenge this narrative in court, also arguing that she may have provoked the dog, which could have sparked its violent reaction. On the other hand, Avila believes that Brown’s list of prior legal issues could help validate her claim of conduct issues surrounding the singer, especially if his defense tries to portray his character in a way that undermines her trauma.
“If defendants or their witnesses testify in a manner that portrays defendant as nonviolent or non-threatening, minimizes plaintiff’s fear or trauma, or otherwise attacks plaintiff’s credibility based on emotional response, then prior acts evidence may become admissible for impeachment or rebuttal, even if not admissible in plaintiff’s case-in-chief,” detailed the filing.
As both sides make their claim over the relevance of the Rihanna assault case, the judge will determine how crucial its reference is to the trial. If the judge sides with Avila, it would allow the jury to base their decision on Brown’s responsibility for the dog attack, with his past legal woes in mind.
Although previously delayed, the trial remains scheduled to begin on June 15.
RELATED CONTENT: Tyrese Brings That Turtleneck Energy To NYC Streets In Bid For Usher & Chris Brown Tour
Source: Black Enterprise
