Stefon Diggs's lawyer: "Professional athletes have a target on their back"

Player mentions

Article text

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.