Stefon Diggs trial will continue on Tuesday

Player mentions

Article text

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…