Judge reopens sexual assault case against goth rocker Marilyn Manson

Marilyn Manson arrives at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party on Feb. 9, 2020, in Beverly Hills, Calif.

A judge in Los Angeles has reinstated a lawsuit against shock rocker Marilyn Manson under a new law enabling old sexual assault cases to be heard in court.

The lawsuit, filed in May 2021 by a former assistant to the musician, had been dismissed in December because it exceeded the statute of limitations, a maximum time period for initiating legal proceedings after the related events took place.

But plaintiff Ashley Walters asked the court to reconsider her case in January, when a new law mandated a two-year window for the consideration of sexual assault cases that had already expired under the statute.

The lawsuit was accepted by the same Los Angeles Superior Court judge who had dismissed it the month before. “I looked at this closely,” Judge Steve Cochran said at a hearing on Monday, according to media reports. “I do think the statute revives the claim.”

Walters alleges that the rocker sexually assaulted her when she worked for his Manson Records between 2010-2011.

She also claims that Manson, whose real name is Brian Hugh Warner, boasted about raping women and even showed her a video in which he was abusing a minor girl.

Manson’s lawyer Howard King said the lawsuit would fail.

“While Ms. Walters made several now-irrelevant claims about so-called workplace harassment, she has no pending claims for sexual assault as defined in the penal code, as would be required under the new law, nor is she permitted under the ruling to add new claims,” King said in a statement sent to AFP on Tuesday.

“The undeniable fact is that Mr. Warner never committed any sexual assault,” he added.

Several women have accused Manson, 57, of sexual abuse and assault over the years, including actresses Esme Bianco (“Game of Thrones”) and his former partner Evan Rachel Wood.

One of those cases, alleging sexual assault and domestic violence, was dismissed in January 2025, again because it fell outside of the statute of limitations.