The criminal trial of free-agent wide receiver Stefon Diggs kicked off on Monday, with proceedings set to resume Tuesday morning. Day one featured jury selection, opening statements, and testimony from the alleged victim, Mila Adams, who claims Diggs slapped and choked her by putting his arm around her neck in December 2025.

Opening statements were brief and straightforward. The prosecution argues that Diggs assaulted and strangled Adams, while Diggs's legal team maintains the incident never occurred. Adams completed her direct examination on Monday afternoon, and the day ended during her cross-examination by Diggs's lawyers.

Drawing from 19 years of legal experience, here are three key takeaways from the first day:

1. Plausible Details
Adams's account of the alleged assault included a specific detail—she said she urinated during the incident. This type of detail often lends credibility, as fabricating such an unflattering, specific fact is uncommon.

2. Extraneous Information
Adams repeatedly tried to add extra context to her answers, prompting the judge to instruct her multiple times to only respond to the questions asked. When a judge frequently admonishes a witness, jurors may become skeptical of the witness's story.

3. Combative Tone
During cross-examination, Adams was often combative, adding extra content to simple, closed-ended questions instead of giving direct answers. This can undermine a witness's credibility, as truth-tellers typically concede points without resistance.

As the trial continues, these early impressions could shape how jurors view the case. We'll keep you updated as more details emerge.