A jury has found former New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs not guilty of felony strangulation and misdemeanor assault charges following a brief but closely watched trial centered on allegations made by his former personal chef.
The verdict, delivered Tuesday, May 5th, after a two-day trial, clears Diggs of accusations tied to a December 2nd incident at his home in Dedham. The case stemmed from claims made by Jamila Adams, a live-in chef who worked for Diggs and was known as “Mila,” who alleged that the NFL player assaulted her during a dispute.
Diggs had pleaded not guilty to all charges in February, maintaining through his legal team that the alleged altercation never occurred.
At trial, Adams testified that an argument escalated into violence, describing an encounter in which she said Diggs entered her room and physically attacked her. She told jurors that he “smacked me with an open hand” and then placed his arm around her neck, choking her to the point where she struggled to breathe.
Adams characterized her relationship with Diggs as “complicated,” explaining that while it had previously been sexual, it was not at the time of the alleged incident. She said the two initially met in 2022 through Instagram, later developing a personal and professional relationship that led to her living in his home and preparing his meals.
The dispute, according to testimony, may have involved multiple factors, including compensation disagreements and personal tensions, though Adams maintained that the confrontation turned physical.
During questioning, Adams was repeatedly asked about financial demands she made after the incident. She acknowledged seeking payment she believed she was owed, including a demand of $19,000 that later escalated significantly. When asked about a $5.5 million claim made by her attorney, Adams responded, “I can’t speak on that.” At other points in her testimony, she told jurors, “I don’t understand the question” and “I don’t know how to answer the question.”
Her time on the witness stand was at times contentious with the presiding judge intervening when responses were deemed non-responsive. Portions of her testimony were struck from the record and jurors were instructed to disregard them.
“This is not an opportunity for you to interject your own narrative and evade answering questions,” Judge Jeanmarie Carroll told her, cautioning that continued issues could result in her testimony being removed entirely.
Diggs’ defense team argued that no assault occurred and focused heavily on questioning Adams’ credibility and the absence of physical evidence.
In closing arguments, defense attorney Andrew Kettlewell told jurors that prosecutors had not presented “a single shred of credible evidence” to support the claims.
The defense also highlighted testimony from multiple individuals connected to Diggs who said they saw Adams in the days surrounding the alleged incident and did not observe injuries or signs of distress.
Among them was Jeanelle Sales, Diggs’ chief of staff, who testified that she saw Adams on the day of the alleged assault and did not notice any marks or swelling. According to her testimony, Adams appeared to be in normal spirits at the time.
“She was walking around looking for a piece of paper and a pen to write a card – I guess, write a note to him for his birthday gift,” said Sales.
Xia Charles, Diggs’ hairstylist, also testified that she spent time with Adams shortly after the alleged incident and did not see any visible injuries. She described Adams’ demeanor as normal and said she did not observe marks on her neck or elsewhere.
Additional testimony came from Diggs’ massage therapist and a nurse who provided IV treatments, both of whom also said they did not notice signs of injury or hear any mention of an assault.
Defense attorneys further presented cell phone videos showing Adams socializing in the days after the alleged encounter, including clips of her dancing and interacting casually, which they argued contradicted claims of a violent incident.
Kenneth Ellis, the Dedham police officer who initially took Adams’ report, testified that she arrived at the station visibly emotional.
He told jurors that she “sat down on the bench and she was crying” when she first came in to file the complaint. Ellis said Adams initially requested to speak with a female officer before later providing a statement identifying Diggs.
Under cross-examination, Ellis acknowledged limitations in the investigation. He said he did not observe visible injuries on Adams, did not collect photographic evidence, and did not interview additional witnesses, relying primarily on her account and text messages she provided.
Prosecutors argued that the case hinged largely on Adams’ account and urged jurors not to dismiss her testimony despite inconsistencies or challenges raised during cross-examination.
Assistant District Attorney Drew Virtue acknowledged that Adams’ demeanor on the stand may have raised questions but emphasized that jurors should still evaluate her statements on their merits.
“She was argumentative, avoidant, difficult. But does that mean you should throw away everything she said? No,” said Virtue. He added that jurors should give her testimony “the attention, the scrutiny, the weight it deserves.”
Prosecutors also suggested that several defense witnesses may have had a vested interest in supporting Diggs, pointing to their professional ties to the player.
After the verdict, Diggs’ legal team reiterated their position that the allegations were unfounded and that the case was an example of a broader issue faced by high-profile athletes.
“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,” said Mitch Schuster of Meister, Seelig & Schuster. “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.”
After considering the testimony and evidence presented over two days, the jury found Diggs not guilty on all counts.
