A $90 million civil case against Chris Brown hit a wall on Monday, when a Los Angeles judge declared a mistrial after a juror admitted to looking up information online and talking about it with others. The entire panel was dismissed during jury selection, before Brown — expected to be the plaintiff Maria Avila’s first witness — ever took the stand. Judge Huey P. Cotton said the case would be brought back for further proceedings and ordered Brown to return to court Thursday morning. Avila alleges she was attacked by a large dog at Brown’s home on December 12, 2020, suffering serious injuries.
What the court heard
The mistrial was triggered when a juror acknowledged breaking the judge’s orders not to do outside research, a move the court said tainted the panel’s ability to stay impartial. Proceedings ground to a halt and the jury was dismissed for the day, according to Rolling Stone.
Juror concerns and prior rulings
Even before that misstep, jury selection was rocky. Several potential jurors told the court they could not be fair because of what they already knew about Brown’s history, which fed into the decision to stop the trial. The concern came on top of earlier pretrial battles over whether jurors would be told about Brown’s 2009 assault conviction, disputes that had already put the focus on how to keep the process unbiased, as previously reported by TMZ.
Avila’s allegations and the dog
Avila says the dog, identified in court papers as Hades, mauled her on December 12, 2020, causing injuries so severe they required emergency surgery and left long-term damage. According to court filings and prior reporting, authorities later took custody of the animal and it was euthanized in Humboldt County. The complaint also claims that a member of Brown’s security team drove the dog to Humboldt and abandoned it there, background described in coverage of the lawsuit by Hindustan Times.
What’s next and the stakes
Avila is seeking $90 million in damages, and the case will now have to be restarted with a fresh jury pool and a new timeline for testimony. The judge ordered Brown to be back in court Thursday morning, and comments made during jury selection indicated Brown had accepted partial responsibility in some aspects of the dispute, according to Rolling Stone. For now, the delay leaves both sides recalibrating and the trial’s schedule up in the air.
Legal implications for the case
Because the matter is a civil trial, the new jury will be asked to decide liability and damages rather than criminal guilt. The judge has already ruled that only limited pieces of Brown’s past conduct can be shown to jurors, in an effort to prevent unfair prejudice. Those pretrial decisions, which bar certain historical incidents from coming into evidence, have been a continuing point of contention, as earlier reporting from TMZ noted.
