Diggs assault – In Diggs’ assault trial, a former live-in chef declined to answer questions about alleged payment disputes and claims of owed money.
A former live-in chef in Stefon Diggs’ assault trial declined to directly answer questions about alleged money owed to her, as the dispute over wages and her testimony took center stage.
Jamila “Mila” Adams testified that she worked as a personal chef for Diggs and described how she believed she was not fully compensated after being sent home.. Defense attorneys pressed her about her account of what she was paid. including references to amounts that she said grew over time.. She said she was paid about $2. 000 a week and indicated she did not receive the full payment she believed she deserved.
In court. when asked about a much larger figure associated with her legal claims. Adams said she could not speak to the amount.. At other points, she told jurors she did not understand questions or did not know how to answer them.. The defense also challenged the consistency of her explanations. including what she said publicly earlier this year about not seeking money to settle the matter.
This moment matters because jurors may weigh not only what witnesses say about alleged violence, but also whether disputes over employment and compensation appear to shape a witness’s credibility.
Diggs has pleaded not guilty to a felony strangulation charge and a misdemeanor assault and battery charge tied to an alleged incident at his home in December. Prosecutors say the case turns on what happened on Dec. 2, while defense attorneys argue that the assault never occurred.
During testimony, the judge at times required Adams to answer questions directly and warned against adding extra detail beyond what was asked. Some portions of her responses were struck from the record after being deemed nonresponsive, with jurors instructed to disregard them.
Meanwhile, testimony also included what a police officer said about Adams’ initial report.. The officer testified that Adams arrived at the station visibly upset. said she was crying. and eventually identified Diggs as the person involved.. The officer said the investigation relied largely on Adams’ account and messages she provided. and that he did not observe visible injuries or collect photographs.
The trial is proceeding amid sharply conflicting accounts from earlier testimony and continued arguments over the reliability of what witnesses described. In this kind of case, small details about documentation and timeline often become major fault lines for both sides.
At the close of this day’s testimony. attention remained on Adams’ wage-related statements and her explanations for how she arrived at her compensation figures.. The legal fight is expected to continue as the jury weighs competing narratives about both what occurred and what—if anything—was financially at stake for those involved.
In a broader sense, the trial highlights how quickly everyday disagreements can be reframed in court when they intersect with serious criminal allegations, leaving jurors to separate employment disputes from claims about assault.