A few takeaways from the Stefon Diggs criminal trial
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.
Continue to the original source for the full article.