A few takeaways from the Stefon Diggs criminal trial

2. The prosecution failed to properly prepare the alleged victim.

Any witness who testifies at trial has to fully understand how the process will unfold. Mila Adams apparently had no clue that it would be far more exacting than showing up, giving her version of the key facts, and leaving.

She hadn't been prepared to address in a persuasive way the obvious weaknesses in her testimony. Why didn't she immediately pick up her phone and take pictures of any redness or swelling from allegedly being slapped and strangled? Why didn't she say something to the people she was with later that day, or the next day? Why did she wait two weeks to go to police? Why was she working with others to seek money from Diggs?

It was as if she was surprised by the fact that she'd be questioned aggressively on those issues. At one point, the presiding judge had to tell her (without the jury present) how the question-and-answer process works — and to say that her entire testimony "may be stricken" if she continues to not answer questions and/or to attempt to insert unrelated narratives into her answers.

While it's possible the prosecutors did everything in their power to get Adams to understand what would happen and they believed she understood, her performance shows either they didn't properly prepare her for the experience and/or they grossly misjudged what would happen when it was time to face cross-examination.

3. The prosecutor highlighted the alleged victim's poor performance.

In perhaps the most stunning moment of the entire trial, prosecutor Drew Virtue began his closing argument by admitting that Mila Adams did a poor job on the witness stand.

"Was Ms. Adams a perfect witness? No. She was argumentative, avoidave [sic], difficult. But does that mean you should throw away everything she said? No," Virtue said. "You don't have to like Ms. Adams. You don't have to like the way she testified today and yesterday. But you do have to give her and her testimony the weight that it deserves."

The weight it deserved was overrun by the things that made her an imperfect witness, and by the things that made her and/or her performance potentially unlikable by a jury.

Maybe it was Virtue's way of making things right. Maybe he knew, after watching the cross-examination of Mila Adams, that Diggs should not be convicted.

If that was the case, Virtue should have dismissed the charges before letting the jury deliberate.

If Virtue was indeed still trying to secure a conviction, it was an abysmal closing argument. The best fact in the Commonwealth's favor — that Adams said she urinated while being strangled — wasn't even mentioned during the closing. This specific detail doesn't seem to be something a person making it all up would think to add to the story. An aggressive and impassioned plea to the jury to focus on that one critical fact and to ignore the noise about unrelated issues could have made a difference.

We'll never know whether it would have, because Virtue made no effort to try to argue the case that way.

4. The trial was boring.

Most jurors have had no prior exposure to the trial process. Their expectations are largely if not exclusively shaped by movies and TV shows they have seen. That places a burden on the lawyers in any case to try to meet those expectations — by making the process interesting and, ultimately, entertaining.

None of the four lawyers involved in the Diggs trial seemed to appreciate that basic reality. The jurors need to have their attention grabbed by the performance of the lawyers. They need to have a reason to want to pay close attention to whatever happens next. The lawyer's job is to carefully fashion every aspect of the trial — from jury selection to opening statements to witness questioning to closing arguments — with an eye toward capturing and keeping the full and constant attention of the jury, and on establishing and maintaining their trust.

The trial was, frankly, boring. While it's not supposed to be entertainment, the more it feels like entertainment, the more the jury will pay attention to what's happening and, ultimately, answer the plea of the lawyer who has won their trust when the lawyer asks them to deliver the desired verdict.

5. Professional athletes need to be careful about who they surround themselves with.

Lawyer Mitch Schuster, who represented Diggs, said in a statement issued after the acquittal that "professional athletes have a target on their back." The target comes from their money and fame. And they need to act accordingly.

Players need to be very careful about the people they welcome into their inner circle. Adams served as Diggs's personal chef. She lived in his house. He surely wouldn't have done that if he knew she'd eventually file a police report against him, especially if (as his lawyers claimed) her allegations were false.

Adams described the environment in Diggs's house as a "circus." She was part of it. And she nearly brought down the big top, once she became motivated (for whatever reason) to make a police report that resulted in a felony case to be pursued against him.

Is it easy to ensure the various members of the inner circle can be trusted? No. That doesn't make it any less important. Just as the prosecution failed to properly vet Adams as a witness, Diggs failed to properly vet her as someone who could be trusted to work and to live in his home.

That's the biggest takeaway for Diggs and any other professional athlete. Be careful about the people who are around you all the time. They're the ones who will be the most likely to eventually say you did something you didn't do.