Stefon Diggs Cleared of Strangulation, Assault Charges After Two-Day Trial

Free-agent NFL wide receiver Stefon Diggs was acquitted of strangulation and assault charges following a two-day trial, according to court records.

After the verdict was delivered, Diggs’s attorney, Mitch Schuster, released a statement addressing the allegations and the legal process.

"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. 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."

Schuster’s remarks were shared by Adam Schefter of ESPN.

The charges stemmed from an accusation by Mila Adams, who worked as a live-in chef for Diggs. However, the prosecution’s case faced significant challenges:

• Lack of corroborating evidence supporting Adams’s claims.
• Inconsistencies in Adams’s behavior following the alleged incident, which did not align with the trauma described in her testimony.
• Adams’s testimony was further undermined when the judge warned that her responses to certain questions could result in her entire testimony being "stricken."

The prosecutor acknowledged during closing arguments that Adams was not a "perfect witness," and the defense argued that the case should never have gone to trial. Prosecutors typically exercise broad discretion in such matters and only pursue cases with strong chances of success. In this instance, the decision to proceed was criticized as either a failure to rigorously evaluate the allegations or a misjudgment based on the investigation’s findings.