Chris Brown is now arguing that something from 17 years ago may have influenced a multimillion-dollar verdict against him. A jury ordered Brown to pay nearly $13 million to former housekeeper Maria Avila, who sued after being attacked by his dog. But Brown believes the case was affected by testimony about his highly publicized 2009 assault of Rihanna.

Before the trial, Brown’s legal team reportedly asked the court to keep evidence of the Rihanna incident out, arguing that it had nothing to do with the dog-attack lawsuit and could unfairly prejudice the jury. The judge ultimately allowed testimony related to the 2009 incident. Brown now argues that jurors may have judged him based partly on his past rather than focusing solely on the facts of Avila’s case.

The issue raises an important question about evidence and fairness in court. Judges generally have to weigh whether prior conduct is genuinely relevant to a case against the risk that it could unfairly influence jurors. Once highly emotional or damaging information is presented to a jury, it can be difficult to separate that information from the evidence directly related to the lawsuit.

Brown’s argument, therefore, isn’t simply about his past—it’s about whether that past should have been allowed to influence the jury’s decision in an unrelated civil case. With the verdict reportedly carrying a $12.9 million price tag, the stakes are enormous. Do you agree with Chris Brown? Should testimony about his 2009 incident with Rihanna have been kept out of the trial?