Адвокаты Стефона Диггса заявили об использовании спортсменов в целях вымогательства

After Stefon Diggs emerged from a criminal court in Dedham, Massachusetts, late Tuesday afternoon, not guilty of onerous felony strangulation and assault and battery charges, it should have expunged a six-month saga in which he looked quite bad in the court of public opinion.But, of course, it's not that simple.Because some people who saw the initial allegations in blaring headlines, or charges filed, and a trial looming, might have missed the most important thing: The not guilty verdict.So the former may stick in minds while the latter is marginalized.STEFON DIGGS FELONY STRANGULATION TRIAL BEGINS WITH NFL RECEIVER DENYING EVERYTHINGDiggs knows this. His representation knows this. And they are left victorious at trial but still stinging from the episode."We have taken these allegations seriously from Day One and that’s exactly why we were eager for the facts to come to light through the legal process," Mitch Schuster of Meister, Seelig & Schuster, the firm that represented Diggs throughout his ordeal said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital."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."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 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."PATRIOTS STARS FACING CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS DECLINE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS ABOUT LEGAL TROUBLESThis feels like Diggs, through his attorneys, speaking out.And he is echoing the feelings of multiple athletes who have faced civil or even criminal allegations for which they feel convicted by the public or the media before the facts are heard in court.We've seen this happen countless times.We all remember the Duke Lacrosse team, several members of which were charged with rape, virtually buried under an avalanche of judgment in 2006 only to have the accuser admit in 2024 that she fabricated the story.DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS OUT AFTER DUKE LACROSSE ACCUSER ADMITS TO MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS, YEARS LATERWe remember Brian Banks serving five years for a 2002 rape and kidnapping conviction only to be exonerated in 2012 when his accuser was secretly recorded admitting she fabricated the story.And we definitely recall that Matt Araiza, a former San Diego State University punter who was so prolific in college he was nicknamed the "Punt God." He faced allegations of participating in the gang rape of a 17-year-old girl at an off-campus party in October 2021.He was never criminally charged, but a civil lawsuit naming him led to his immediate release from the Buffalo Bills in August 2022.It was only after the district attorney determined there was no path to a prosecution, San Diego State determined in its internal investigation there was no wrongdoing, and the accuser dropped the civil suit in December 2023, that Araiza was finally able to sign with the Kansas City Chiefs in February 2024.There are other instances where athletes are falsely accused, deemed criminally not guilty, or win at civil trial, but perhaps like Diggs still feel stigmatized.There are also, by the way, plenty of examples where athletes did exactly what they were accused of doing in running the gamut of criminal and civil wrongdoing. And those accusers deserve their day in court and justice just as much as the accused.But the point here is the court of public opinion is neither equipped nor deserving of rendering just decisions.The court of where-there's-smoke-there's-fire is historically unreliable.There was a period earlier this decade that fed the public the idea that accusers were to always be believed at whatever cost. Out of deference. Out of fair play.Except, of course, that was never fair to the accused. In nurturing the alleged victim, we convicted the defendants before a trial began.It's hard to tell if that period has passed. But decisions such as the one that allowed Stefon Diggs to walk out of that court a free man should serve as a warning that maybe judgment should indeed be reserved for a court of law -- and not the court of public opinion.FOLLOW ARMANDO SALGUERO ON X: @ARMANDOSALGUERO