A few takeaways from the Stefon Diggs criminal trial

Player mentions

Article text

The criminal trial against free-agent receiver Stefon Diggs played out on Monday and Tuesday. It ended with an acquittal. Now that the case is over, there are a few things to be drawn from the entire experience. Here are five of them. 1. The prosecution failed to properly vet the case. The case didn't fail because of the story the alleged victim, Mila Adams, told on the witness stand at trial regarding the alleged assault. The rest of her testimony undermined her credibility, to the point that the jury rejected her story as to the most important aspect of the case. The prosecution knew or should have known there were flaws, both as to her broader story and as to her ability to sell it. They should have pressed her aggressively during their interviews of her, in an effort to ensure she would hold up under cross-examination — and, more importantly, to develop true conviction (or not) that her story would be believed by strangers to the situation. Based on her testimony, Adams arguably didn't behave in the days and hours after the alleged incident like someone who had been slapped and strangled. She had no obvious injuries in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident; if she did, she failed to take even one photo or video of them with her phone. Most importantly, her financial motivations were unclear. She claimed she had been underpaid during her time as Diggs's personal, live-in chef. The evidence presented by the defense suggested otherwise. Also, she tried too hard to make it look like she wanted no compensation from Diggs for the alleged assault and strangulation. Her way of dealing with that wrinkle was to periodically attribute the involvement of others on her behalf as part of an effort to get workers' compensation, even though she had no injury that prevented her from going about her normal activities — such as working. These are all things the prosecution could have, and should have, realized without forcing Diggs to incur the expense, annoyance, and uncertainty of a trial. Undertaking that effort should be part of the obligation a prosecutor has to the people. A police report can be filed by anyone, about anything. It's ultimately for law enforcement, as controlled by the local prosecutor, to exercise their very broad discretion as to who does and doesn't get criminally charged with prudence and justice. Diggs, based on the evidence that came to light at trial, never should have been charged. He never should have been charged because the prosecution never should have believed it was going to convince a jury that Diggs was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The prosecution failed to properly prepare the alleged victim. Any witness who testifies at trial has to fully understand how the process will unfold. Mila Adams apparently had no clue that it would be far more exacting than showing up, giving her version of the key facts, and leaving. She hadn't been prepared to address in a persuasive way the obvious weaknesses in her testimony. Why didn't she immediately pick up her phone and take pictures of any redness or swelling from allegedly being slapped and strangled? Why didn't she say something to the people she was with later that day, or the next day? Why did she wait two weeks to go to police? Why was she working with others to seek money from Diggs? It was as if she was surprised by the fact that she'd be questioned aggressively on those issues. At one point, the presiding judge had to tell her (without the jury prese…