A two-day trial ended with a not guilty verdict as to strangulation and assault charges against free-agent receiver Stefon Diggs.
After the case ended, his lawyers, Mitch Schuster, issued a statement.
“We have taken these allegations seriously from day one and that’s exactly why we were eager for the facts to come to light through the legal process,” Schuster said, in a statement distributed to PFT and other outlets. “Fame and financial success shouldn’t strip someone of their presumption of innocence, but too often, it does exactly that. And unfortunately, as is the case with unfounded claims — the damage starts the moment an accusation is filed, long before any facts are examined.
“Professional athletes have a target on their back. When someone sees a uniform and a contract, they see leverage; they see a settlement. And they’re counting on that pressure in the court of public opinion to drive a default decision to settle regardless of the facts of the matter. The evidence has shown what we’ve maintained from day one: Mr. Diggs was wrongly accused, and this case represents exactly the kind of opportunistic targeting that players can face the moment they step off the field.”
The problem as to the claims made by Mila Adams, who worked as a live-in chef for Diggs, was that she had no corroboration as to her claims. Also, her behavior in the days after the alleged incident did not seem to be consistent with the actions someone who had experienced the trauma of being slapped and choked.
Adams did herself no favors by the manner in which she answered questions regarding other details in the case, to the point at which the judge warned Adams that her entire testimony “may be stricken.” The prosecutor acknowledged during closing argument that she was not a perfect witness.
Frankly, the prosecutor shouldn’t have taken the case to trial. There’s very broad discretion in such matters; most prosecutors only pursue cases they know they will win.
In this case, the prosecutor either failed to test the allegations via an aggressive evaluation of the case, or the prosecutor made a bad decision based on the information obtained during the investigation phase.
A Massachusetts jury has found free agent wide receiver Stefon Diggs not guilty of strangulation and assault and battery charges, according to multiple reports.
Deliberations lasted roughly 90 minutes, with the jury briefly returning to the courtroom to ask Judge Jeanmarie Carroll a question, before delivering a not guilty verdict on both counts. The trial lasted two days, wrapping up Tuesday.
Diggs’ former live-in chef, Jamila “Mila” Adams, testified that the NFL player slapped and choked her during a Dec. 2 argument at his house. Diggs, who pleaded not guilty, was in the Dedham District Court for the reading of the verdict.
Defense attorney Andrew Kettlewell said during closing arguments that prosecutors had not presented “a single shred of credible evidence” that an assault occurred.
The defense had pointed to financial demands Adams made, raising questions about whether the dispute was about an alleged assault or money.
During cross-examination, Adams would not answer questions about financial demands made on her behalf.
“There was no assault, no strangulation, no incident at all on that day or any other day,” Kettlewell said, via the Associated Press.
Free-agent receiver Stefon Diggs currently stands trial on a felony strangulation charge and a misdemeanor charge of assault. He decided not to take the witness stand to rebut the allegations of the alleged victim, Mila Adams.
Under the American system of justice, criminal defendants have a constitutional right to not testify, with the burden resting on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with other evidence.
Although Adams told an objectively compelling story regarding the alleged assault, the rest of the evidence arguably undermined her claim.
For starters, there was no physical evidence of any injury. No photos taken at the time of the alleged incident, no apparent injuries when she reported the incident to police.
Also, her behavior after the alleged incident, as explained by other witnesses who interacted with her, was inconsistent with the reasonable aftermath of an assault.
Diggs’s lawyers attempted during closing argument to show that her contention regarding an alleged assault was simply not credible.
As of this posting, the judge is instructing the jury on the law that applies to the case. The jury will then begin to deliberate on a verdict.
The first day of the Stefon Diggs trial ended with the alleged victim, Mila Adams, on the witness stand. The second day began with the continuation of her cross-examination.
After another string of answers that were not responsive to the question asked, Judge Jeanmarie Carroll called for a break. After the break, and before the jury returned to the courtroom, Judge Carroll delivered a clear message to Adams about the importance of answering the questions she has been asked — and only those questions.
“You’re responsible for answering questions that are put to you,” Judge Carroll said. “If you don’t understand the question, you can say that. And I’m sure counsel will rephrase it. If you can’t hear a question, tell them that as well. But courtrooms function in, and especially trials unfold, in a question and answer format. This is not an opportunity for you to interject your own narrative and evade responding to questions the court deems appropriate. And if you continue to do so, your entire testimony may be stricken. Am I clear?”
When questioning resumed, Adams was asked about a $5.5 million settlement demand her lawyer had made to Diggs. Adams was again evasive, initially trying to cite the attorney-client privilege (which clearly does not apply). It felt as if Diggs’s lawyer had Adams on the ropes, and potentially on the verge of providing the basis for a motion to strike her entire testimony.
Instead of continuing to give her more opportunities to run afoul of the judge’s instructions, the lawyer ended the cross-examination. Adams completed redirect and re-cross without further incident, and her testimony was not stricken.
If Adams’s testimony had been stricken, the entire case would have collapsed. Without her testimony regarding the alleged assault, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Diggs had assaulted and/or strangled her.
Despite the issues that arose regarding a slew of questions to Adams unrelated to the key events in the case, the overriding question continues to be whether the jury will believe her explanation as to the alleged assault. That will depend on the rest of the evidence introduced, the closing arguments, and the jury’s deliberations.
The criminal trial against free-agent receiver Stefon Diggs went to trial on Monday. The case will resume on Tuesday morning.
The first day consisted of jury selection, opening statements, and the testimony of the alleged victim, Mila Adams. She claims that Diggs slapped her and then choked her by putting his arm around her neck in December 2025.
The opening statements were short and not particularly memorable. The prosecution claims that Diggs assaulted and strangled Adams. Diggs’s lawyers contend it did not happen.
Adams completed her direct examination on Monday afternoon. The first day of the trial ended during her cross-examination by Diggs’s lawyers.
Here are a couple of takeaways, based on the fact that (once upon a time) I spent 19 years practicing law and navigating the process of trying cases in court.
First, Adams’s version of the incident seemed plausible and compelling. She said that, during the alleged assault, she urinated. Common sense suggests that someone who was fabricating the attack wouldn’t think to add that very specific detail.
Second, Adams repeatedly tried to bring extraneous facts into her answers. She was directed multiple times by the presiding judge to only answer the questions that were asked, and not to add other commentary. The more the judge admonishes a witness to stick to the questions asked, the more skeptical the jury can become of the story the witness is telling.
Third, Adams was at times too combative during cross-examination. Instead of answering the simple, closed-ended questions from Diggs’s lawyer, Adams often tried to add extra content to the responses. It potentially undermined the story she told in direct examination, converting her from a vehicle for basic facts into an advocate against Diggs.
Basically, a witness shouldn’t try to fight every point the lawyer is trying to make. Truth tellers concede the points that need to be conceded, without resisting them every step of the way.
Fourth, the questions on cross-examination at times seemed to be all over the place. The goal should be to make various finite points through a series of specific questions that prove each one. At times, it wasn’t clear where the lawyer was going with her questions to Adams. Too much ground was being covered. There were few lines of questioning that directly challenged Adams’s version of the alleged assault and strangulation.
The overriding question is whether Diggs will testify. He doesn’t have to. Doing so exposes him to cross-examination. One false move while being grilled by the prosecution could blow up the entire defense.
Diggs and his lawyers will have to decide whether enough holes were poked in Adams’s story to support a successful closing argument that she basically made it all up. That she got on the witness stand and committed perjury as to the claim that he slapped and strangled her.
For now, the effort seems to be to try to catch her in various inconsistencies on issues other than the alleged attack. Most seem irrelevant to the question of whether, during an argument in December 2025, Diggs got physical with her. In the end, Diggs may have to tell his story, and tell it well, to ensure an acquittal.
Yes, criminal cases have a very high standard of evidence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Without Diggs’s testimony, the argument will be that, based on specific issues in her testimony unrelated to the incident that could be characterized as evidence of untruthfulness, her sworn testimony that he slapped and strangled her should be rejected by the jury as false.
That’s quite the risk to take. Especially if the jury — which has been and will again be told Diggs has the right to not testify — wonders why, if it’s so clear that he didn’t do anything wrong, he didn’t get on the witness stand and tell them that, in his own words.
The facts are simple. The claim is clear. He slapped her and strangled her, or he didn’t. If the jury believes he did, the legal standard doesn’t matter. In this specific case, the issue has been framed as an all-or-nothing proposition.
