Judge in Stefon Diggs case warned alleged victim that her full testimony may be stricken

The first day of the Stefon Diggs trial ended with the alleged victim, Mila Adams, on the witness stand. The second day began with the continuation of her cross-examination.

After another string of answers that were not responsive to the question asked, Judge Jeanmarie Carroll called for a break. After the break, and before the jury returned to the courtroom, Judge Carroll delivered a clear message to Adams about the importance of answering the questions she has been asked — and only those questions.

"You're responsible for answering questions that are put to you," Judge 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?"

When questioning resumed, Adams was asked about a $5.5 million settlement demand her lawyer had made to Diggs. Adams was again evasive, initially trying to cite the attorney-client privilege (which clearly does not apply). 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.

Instead of continuing to give her more opportunities to run afoul of the judge's instructions, the lawyer ended the cross-examination. Adams completed redirect and re-cross without further incident, and her testimony was not stricken.

If Adams's testimony had been stricken, the entire case would have collapsed. Without her testimony regarding the alleged assault, it would be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Diggs had assaulted and/or strangled her.

Despite the issues that arose regarding a slew of questions to Adams unrelated to the key events in the case, the overriding question continues to be whether the jury will believe her explanation as to the alleged assault. That will depend the rest of the evidence introduced, the closing arguments, and the jury's deliberations.