DEDHAM — The trial of former New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs is set to resume Tuesday morning with continued cross-examination of the woman who accused him of assaulting her last December.
Diggs, 32, is charged with strangulation or suffocation, a felony, and a misdemeanor count of assault and battery. Judge Jeanmarie Carroll is overseeing the trial in district court here.
Prosecutors say Diggs hit a woman working for him as a private chef across the face and wrapped his arm around her neck from behind, choking her, on Dec. 2. The woman reported the incident on Dec. 16. Diggs’ defense says the incident never happened.
Assistant Norfolk District Attorney Drew Virtue is prosecuting the case, and attorneys Andrew Kettlewell and Sara Silva are representing Diggs. The jury comprises six women and one man.
Follow live updates from the trial’s second day:
4:35 p.m. – Verdict
Jurors acquitted Diggs of both charges he faced. Diggs stood between his lawyers as the verdict was returned. He did not visibly react.
4:15 p.m. – Jury returns with a question
Jurors asked the judge what the three criteria were for the two charges Diggs faces.
Both prosecutors and Diggs’ defense agreed that the best course of action was for Carroll to re-instruct them about the law.
With the jury back in court, Carroll told them that on the charge of assault and battery, prosecutors must prove Diggs touched the woman, intended to touch her and that the “touching would cause harm or was offensive.”
“A touching is offensive when it is without consent,” she said.
To prove strangulation or suffocation, prosecutors must prove Diggs “intentionally applied pressure on the throat or neck” of the woman, that the pressure was substantial and the pressure “interfered with normal breathing or circulation of blood.”
She told the jury that if prosecutors failed to prove one of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, they must acquit Diggs.
3:07 p.m. – Jury exits to begin deliberations
After jurors heard instructions about the law and the charges from Carroll, the court clerk selected one juror to serve as an alternate. The deliberating jury is made up of five women and one man.
Court officers led the jury out after being sworn in by the clerk.
2:40 p.m. – Prosecution urges jury to convict Diggs
In his closing argument, Virtue admitted that Diggs’ accuser was not a “perfect witness.” She was “argumentative,” on the stand, he acknowledged.
But he told the jury to focus on how she described the supposed assault in her bedroom — she paused and looked around to compose herself. The way she spoke adds to her credibility, he said.
Virtue said the woman’s behavior after the incident could be explained away by the complicated nature of her relationship with Diggs — her “sometimes lover, boss (and) landlord.”
It was simply “her way of continuing on,” he said.
Virtue told the panel to pay attention to one another when they begin their deliberations and to be thorough in coming to their conclusion. He warned against taking an immediate vote, and urged them to go through all the evidence and review the testimony of each witness.
“Every bit of evidence is important,” he said.
After that review, he told the panel they should return the “correct verdict” — guilty on all counts.
2:30 p.m. – ‘Inconsistent testimony’
Kettlewell emphasized to jurors that the burden of proof was on the commonwealth, and he contended that the government’s case relied solely on the “inconsistent testimony” of one witness — the accuser.
That is not enough to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he suggested.
“How much would you bet on the words of (the woman) would you bet your own life? Someone else’s?” Kettlewell said.
He told jurors that they could take into account how the woman answered questions and the way she behaved on the stand. Kettlewell pointed them specifically to an exchange where she was asked about a demand for money her lawyer sent to Diggs’ team.
The woman “wouldn’t” and “couldn’t” answer he said.
Kettlewell also sought to rebut a potential argument from the government — that many defense witnesses worked for Diggs and benefitted financially from him.
He suggested that the woman had the “most significant financial interest” in the case.
She “made this accusation as a means to try and leverage and humiliate and punish Stefon Diggs,” Kettlewell said.
2:10 p.m. – Defense begins closing argument
Kettlewell began his closing argument by returning to something he told the jury in his opening statement Monday afternoon: that the assault the woman claims to be the victim of never happened.
“You have not been provided with a single shred of evidence to determine an assault occurred,” he said, noting that jurors saw no photographs or injuries to support the woman’s claims.
As he spoke, the woman shook her head in the front row of the courtroom. She occasionally leaned over to speak to her lawyer.
On Dec. 2, after the supposed assault, the woman made dinner for Diggs and delivered him a birthday present. She spent the afternoon on the phone and booked a flight to Atlanta.
“All of this … would have occurred after what (she) says was a violent assault,” Kettlewell said.
Kettlewell told jurors to focus on what the woman did when she returned to Diggs’ home on Dec. 9 after a trip to New York. She went straight to Diggs’ bedroom and tried to enter, he noted.
“None of that is consistent with a violent assault having occurred the last time they interacted,” he said.
He contrasted those actions with what she told police about the purpose of her return, which was to get her belongings because she had left her position.
Kettlewell pointed the jury to texts between the woman and Diggs on Dec. 13 where they discuss a non-disclosure agreement she was asked to sign. The woman told police she believed the agreement was an attempt to keep her quiet about the assault.
But Kettlewell suggested the texts tell a different story, noting that she never mentioned an assault in the conversation.
“Look at all of those facts. They’re undisputed in the record. If you remove one thing — that an assault occurred — they all make sense,” he said. “If you plug in that she was assaulted, none of it makes sense.”
12:43 p.m. – Defense rests its case
The final witness to testify for Diggs’ defense was Natalia Moses, a hairstylist who spent a week with Diggs’ accuser in New York City after the day when she claims the assault took place.
Moses said she hadn’t spent time with the woman individually before that week. During that time, Moses said she never saw redness or bruising on the woman’s neck or face, and couldn’t recall her complaining about being sore or stiff.
On Dec. 3, the day after the supposed assault, the woman was “bubbly” and in a good mood, Moses recalled.
Moses said the woman asked her to do her hair, so she got a “close up view” of her neck, and didn’t notice any marks or redness.
“Did she say or do anything to suggest Stef Diggs scared her or hurt her in any way?” Silva asked. “No,” Moses replied.
On cross-examination, Virtue asked the woman if she had been looking for bruises on the woman. Moses said she hadn’t.
With Moses off the stand, Carroll dismissed the jury for the lunch break. Closing statements are expected at 2 p.m. when the trial resumes.
12:28 p.m. – Hairstylist recalls chef saying she wanted to make Diggs ‘pay’
Kettlewell called Xia Charles, a New York City-based hair stylist, to the stand. Charles said she met Diggs when he played for the Buffalo Bills and has regularly braided his hair.
Charles went to Diggs’ Dedham home several times, and became friendly with the woman.
On Dec. 2, Charles called the woman while out buying groceries. The woman was sitting in the kitchen in Diggs’ home at the time. Charles said she didn’t notice anything odd about her appearance.
The pair connected again that day when Charles picked her up from the airport. Charles again confirmed she saw nothing out of the ordinary and didn’t notice any bruising.
The next day, Charles saw the woman in a towel and again told Kettlewell she noticed no visible injuries. The woman made no mention of being attacked or assaulted.
Charles went to Dedham on Dec. 12 or 13 to do Diggs’ hair for a game, she said.
She recalled the woman yelling at Diggs, “Yo Stef, when am I gonna get my money?”
Later that night, Charles said she spoke to the woman again, who said she was going to sue Diggs for money she believed she was owed.
“Do you remember her saying she was going to make him pay?” Kettlewell asked. Charles said she did.
On cross-examination, Virtue asked Charles about how much Diggs paid her and the nature of their relationship.
Charles said she was paid up to $1,500 and had attended several football games with Diggs, but that their relationship was strictly professional.
12 p.m. – Diggs business manager describes audit of chef’s expenses
Diggs’ defense called Melissa Goddard, who oversaw both Diggs’ personal expenses and his business, in December 2025, as the next witness.
Goddard initially handled only Diggs’ business expenses but took over the personal concierge expenses in the fall of 2025.
When the woman submitted an invoice in early December 2025, Goddard said she “immediately knew it was incorrect,” because she had been paid for two of the weeks she claimed to have not been paid for.
Goddard said she then reviewed all payments made to the woman and the receipts and reimbursements she submitted, trying to determine whether she had made a mistake or the woman had.
That review determined the woman had been overpaid by roughly $2,500 and submitted receipts multiple times over the course of six months and asked to be reimbursed for packages sent by Diggs’ FedEx account.
Goddard also found an additional $744 that “maybe was legitimate,” but she couldn’t substantiate. She said she reached out to the woman to clarify, but she never responded. When she reported the overpayments to Diggs on Dec. 5, 2025, he told her to prepare a report.
He “wanted to make sure she was paid,” Goddard said.
Goddard also testified about asking the woman to fill out a non-disclosure agreement after determining she was missing paperwork that other employees working for Diggs had filled out.
But Goddard said she didn’t follow up because Diggs told her “not to worry about it.”
11:50 a.m. – Massage therapist says woman ‘seemed to be ok’ after alleged assault
The next witness to testify for the defense was Stephanie Anastassi, a massage therapist at The Right Touch Day Spa in Attleboro. Anastassi explained that she also does work for private clients, including Diggs.
She met Diggs through a physical therapist she knew from working for the Boston Celtics, she said.
Anastassi said she arrived at the home between 5:45 p.m. and 6 p.m. and massaged Diggs in his bedroom.
During the massage, the woman entered but left when she noticed Diggs was asleep. Anastassi said she returned later in the massage, waking up Diggs.
The woman “seemed to be ok” and “looked the same as in the past,” Anastassi said. She didn’t see any marks on the woman’s face or neck.
On a brief cross-examination, she confirmed that word of mouth is “very important” in her field.
11:37 a.m. – Defense calls next witness
The next witness for the defense was Julianna Stratoti, a registered nurse at Mass General Brigham who also does private work on the side.
Stratoti explained that she often makes house calls and told Kettlewell that she arrived at Diggs’ home around 4:50 p.m. on Dec. 2, 2025. She said she didn’t have a specific memory of leaving, but her appointments were typically 45 minutes to an hour long.
The treatment she did for Diggs was in the living room, she said, and she didn’t hear or see anything unusual in the house that day.
Virtue conducted a brief cross-examination and Stratoti stepped down.
11:18 a.m. – Testimony resumes
Jeanelle Sales, Diggs’ chief of staff, resumed her testimony after the break. She confirmed to Kettlewell that she left the house around 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 2, and returned around 1 p.m. Diggs returned around 3:40 p.m., she said.
Sales said she saw the woman, Diggs’ brother and his childhood best friend in the home that day.
She saw “nothing out of the usual,” she testified.
Sales said she spoke to the woman later that afternoon when she asked if Sales had purchased her a flight to Atlanta.
Kettlewell asked her if she saw any redness or swelling on the woman’s face or neck. Sales said she didn’t.
The woman was walking around the kitchen, looking for a note to write something to Diggs for his birthday, Sales said.
She confirmed she didn’t hear anything out of the ordinary. When she spoke to the woman that day, she never reported the alleged assault.
On cross-examination, Sales told Virtue that Diggs pays her between $90,000 and $100,000 each year.
“Was there a time when both of them were out of your range to see and hear?” Virtue asked, referring to Diggs and the woman. Sales said there was.
Virtue returned to the subject of finances, asking the woman if it was “fair to say” she had a “financial interest in Mr. Diggs doing well?”
“I think we collectively do well,” she said, adding that Diggs was a “great” boss and she wanted to keep working for him.
On re-direct from Kettlewell, Sales said she wouldn’t lie to keep her job.
Her testimony ended there.
10:59 a.m. – Morning recess
Carroll called a break while Kettlewell questioned Sales.
Sales explained that she coordinates most aspects of Diggs’ life, including travel and regular appointments. She was also involved in the hiring of Diggs’ accuser and other chefs.
On Dec. 2, the day of the incident, Sales said she and Diggs were planning to go to Miami along with Diggs’ brother and two close friends. Diggs was planning to debut a luxury furniture line there at Art Basel, a contemporary art fair.
Kettlewell showed Sales Ring camera footage of Diggs leaving for work that morning.
10:41 a.m. – First defense witness concludes testimony
The first witness to testify for Diggs’ defense was Michael Perry, a digital forensics expert at Stroz Friedberg. Perry extracted text messages from Diggs’ phone and prepared reports of his texts with the accuser.
Perry said users can’t insert messages into conversations that haven’t been sent, and explained that on iPhones, deleted texts can be recovered after 30 days.
On cross-examination, he conceded that he wouldn’t be able to tell if Diggs had deleted messages from his phone because he performed the extractions in April.
10:23 a.m. – Commonwealth rests
Prosecutors rested their case after calling Dedham police officer Kenneth Ellis to the stand.
An 18-year veteran of the police force, Ellis was the officer who took the report from Diggs’ accuser and filed the application for a criminal complaint. He said the woman initially didn’t want to mention anyone involved, but eventually told him that Diggs attacked her.
Ellis said he spoke to the woman two or three more times on the phone and exchanged emails with her before filing the complaint.
On cross-examination from Kettlewell, Ellis acknowledged that while he attempted to contact Diggs, he never spoke to him or anyone else about the incident.
Ellis confirmed that the woman told him she and Diggs had argued over money and that she left her job after the assault. He agreed with Kettlewell that it would be “important” for him to know if someone had deleted text messages they turned over to police.
“I’d want the whole picture, correct,” Ellis said.
Kettlewell concluded his questioning there. After Virtue announced the commonwealth was resting its case, the lawyers had a brief conversation with Carroll at sidebar.
10:11 a.m. – Accuser’s testimony concludes
On a brief re-direct, Virtue had the woman read more texts between her and Diggs leading up to the alleged assault.
Diggs told her, “I won’t be paying you” and “tell them to come take the money.” The woman responded by calling him an expletive.
She told Virtue it was “common practice” when private chefs are sent away for a week, they still get paid.
He concluded by asking the woman if when she said she hadn’t sought money to settle the case, she was referring to the criminal case. She said that was true.
Silva’s re-cross-examination focused mostly on the issue of payment, as she tried to get the woman to concede she wanted Diggs to give her money to open her own restaurant.
“You wanted him to pay you to open your restaurant, right?” Silva asked. “I wanted him to pay me past wages,” the woman countered.
10:02 a.m. – Cross-examination concludes
With the woman back on the stand, Silva returned to the $5.5 million demand that the woman’s lawyer sent to Diggs.
The woman said she couldn’t answer the question, then claimed that the subject was covered by attorney-client privilege. When Silva pushed further, the woman said she was pursuing a workers’ compensation claim — an answer Carroll struck from the record.
Silva eventually concluded her questioning. Virtue’s re-direct examination was interrupted by several quick objections and a sidebar.
9:58 a.m. – Judge warns accuser: ‘Your entire testimony may be stricken.’
Without the jury in the room, Carroll again warned the woman that she must only answer the questions that are asked of her.
“If you don’t understand, you can say that,” Carroll told her, explaining that trials function in a question-and-answer format. “This is not an opportunity for you to interject your own narrative.”
“If you continue to do so your entire testimony may be stricken,” she said.
When the jury returned, Carroll emphasized to them that any answers that are stricken by her can’t be considered evidence in the case.
“When an answer is stricken, it does not exist,” she said. “You’re sworn to determine those facts solely and exclusively from the evidence presented.”
9:28 a.m. – Woman questioned about demands for money
Silva moved on to questions about requests for money the woman had made through a mediator, then through a lawyer.
She suggested to the woman that a mediator made a money demand on Dec. 29 — the same day the criminal complaint was issued in Diggs’ case. The woman said she hadn’t seen the demand and then that she couldn’t answer the question.
The woman did confirm the mediator asked for $19,000, a claim she said was for “wages owed.”
Silva then turned to questions about the lawyer the woman hired to represent her.
She asked if the lawyer helped prepare her to testify, but the woman replied, “I don’t know how to answer that question.”
The woman followed up that she hired a lawyer because “I was injured on the job and I needed to file a workers’ comp case.”
The questioning was frequently interrupted by Silva asking Carroll to strike the answer and sidebar conversations. Carroll also had to instruct the woman to let Silva finish her questions and to only answer the question she had been asked.
Silva asked the woman whether her lawyer demanded $5.5 milion from Diggs. The woman replied that Diggs had offered her $100,000 to recant her statement, a response Carroll quickly told the jury to disregard.
The lawyers then went to sidebar. After the conversation, jurors were ushered out of the courtroom and Carroll stepped off the bench.
During the break, Diggs huddled with his lawyers at the defense table.
9:18 a.m. – Cross-examination resumes
Silva restarted her examination of the woman with questions about texts she exchanged with Diggs’ girlfriend on Jan. 1, 2026.
That day, the woman texted Diggs’ girlfriend, “I didn’t say that,” which Silva suggested was a reference to the statements she gave to Dedham Police.
The woman told Silva she couldn’t answer the question.
“Did you or did you not write those words?” Silva pressed on. “I don’t understand the question without further explaining,” the woman replied.
More stories about Stefon Diggs
Read the original article on MassLive. Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here.