The courtroom drama in the Stefon Diggs assault trial heated up Monday when the presiding judge issued a sharp warning to the alleged victim, Mila Adams, telling her to follow the rules or risk losing her testimony entirely.
Adams, who claims the veteran NFL wide receiver assaulted her while she worked as his personal chef, took the stand as the trial opened. But Judge Jeanmarie Carroll quickly grew frustrated with what she saw as evasive answers.
“You’re responsible for answering questions that are put to you,” Carroll said. “If you don’t understand the question, you can say that. And I’m sure counsel will rephrase it. If you can’t hear a question, tell them that as well. But courtrooms function in, and especially trials unfold, in a question and answer format. This is not an opportunity for you to interject your own narrative and evade responding to questions the court deems appropriate. And if you continue to do so, your entire testimony may be stricken. Am I clear?”
The warning came as Diggs’ attorney pressed Adams on a $5.5 million settlement demand her lawyer had made to Diggs. According to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, Adams was evasive, initially trying to cite attorney-client privilege—which the judge noted clearly does not apply in this context.
“It felt as if Diggs’s lawyer had Adams on the ropes, and potentially on the verge of providing the basis for a motion to strike her entire testimony,” Florio reported.
Diggs, now with the New England Patriots after a standout career with the Buffalo Bills, has denied the assault allegations from the start. His attorney reiterated that stance in court, saying, “The assault that the Commonwealth described in their opening statement never happened. It did not happen.” The defense also pointed out that no one else in the house saw or heard anything unusual.
The trial, which began Monday, is expected to continue this week. For more on the case, check out our earlier report: Stefon Diggs Day in Court: Felony Trial Kicks Off Monday.
Legal experts say the judge’s warning could be a pivotal moment. If Adams’ testimony were stricken, it would severely weaken the prosecution’s case. But after her cross-examination ended without further incident, her testimony remains on the record—for now.
This isn’t the only high-profile legal drama involving NFL players. Meanwhile, Mark Sanchez's trial has been delayed again as the former QB faces felony battery charges.
As the Diggs trial unfolds, all eyes will be on whether Adams can stay within the lines—or if the judge will make good on her warning.
