Stefon Diggs Found Not Guilty In Chef Attack

Stefon Diggs has done a lot of winning, but no victory was more important than the one the NFL star just got in a Massachusetts courtroom ... he was found not guilty of attacking his chef during a dispute late last year.

The 32-year-old was on hand at the Dedham District Court for the reading of the verdict ... and it was nothing short of a resounding success for Diggs, who faced one count of felony strangulation and one count of misdemeanor assault and battery. Diggs was emotional as the verdict was being read ... with tears flowing from his eye and down his face.

"Not guilty." "Not guilty." Case closed. Deliberation lasted around an hour and a half.

Diggs was facing up to five years in prison for the felony ... obviously a moot point, as a jury found the accuser's claims to be bogus.

Of course, Stefon's former live-in chef, Jamila Adams, testified that the standout wideout seriously roughed her up during a dispute over money in December 2025, claiming she couldn't breathe during the alleged attack.

Adams' time on the stand went anything but smoothly. She was admonished on several occasions by the judge for failing to answer questions asked by the Diggs' defense team.

Adams was questioned about an alleged $5.5 million demand her team made just three weeks before the trial was set to begin, presumably for her cooperation. She ultimately claimed she wasn't aware of the request.

Jamila -- who claimed she first had a sexual relationship with Stefon after meeting on social media more than four years ago, before then being hired in early 2025 -- was also questioned about why she hadn't documented her injuries in the wake of the alleged violent attack.

In fact, during closing arguments, Diggs' team said there wasn't a single "shred" of evidence, beyond Adams' own words.

Stefon's attorney, Mitch Schuster, told TMZ Sports in a statement that the athlete's legal team has "taken these allegations seriously from day one."

Schuster said ... "Fame and financial success shouldn't strip someone of their presumption of innocence, but too often, it does exactly that. And unfortunately, as is the case with unfounded claims -- the damage starts the moment an accusation is filed, long before any facts are examined."

He added ... "Professional athletes have a target on their back. When someone sees a uniform and a contract, they see leverage; they see a settlement. And they’re counting on that pressure in the court of public opinion to drive a default decision to settle regardless of the facts of the matter."

The statement concluded ... "The evidence has shown what we've maintained from day one: Mr. Diggs was wrongly accused, and this case represents exactly the kind of opportunistic targeting that players can face the moment they step off the field."