MAY 6: The conclusion of Diggs’ trial will turn attention back to the league’s investigation into the allegations, which remains ongoing.
“We have been monitoring all developments in the matter which remains under review of the Personal Conduct Policy,” said an NFL spokesperson (via Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio). As a result, teams may wait to get an update on any potential discipline before signing Diggs. However, his acquittal could encourage one to forge ahead knowing that he would forfeit his salary and pay back prorations of his signing bonus for any games missed due to suspension.
MAY 5: A Boston jury acquitted Stefon Diggs on assault and strangulation charges Tuesday, KPRC2’s Aaron Wilson reports. This stemmed from an alleged December 2025 incident, with accusations coming from a woman who had worked for the veteran wide receiver.
Diggs, 32, is a free agent after the Patriots cut him one season into a three-year agreement. While Diggs could still be subject to NFL discipline under the league’s personal conduct policy, this verdict should certainly help him land another opportunity ahead of the 2026 season.
A woman, Mila Adams, who had served as a Diggs personal chef accused the Pro Bowl receiver of assaulting her and testified in the jury trial Monday. Diggs was facing a charge of felony strangulation or suffocation as well as a charge of misdemeanor assault and battery.
Adams was allegedly working as a private chef for Diggs when a financial dispute arose. In a police report, she alleged Diggs entered her unlocked bedroom and, as the dispute continued in-person, “smacked her across the face.” Adams then claimed Diggs “tried to choke her using the crook of his elbow around her neck” and that she feared she may pass out as a result. Diggs denied Adams’ claims, pleading not guilty in February, and is now legally in the clear.
Diggs did not testify in the trial, according to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, who notes no visible injuries were present on the accuser’s body when she filed a police report. No photos were taken following the alleged incident. Diggs’ lawyers argued the woman’s claims of an assault were not credible, and the high-profile NFLer’s side won out.
The Patriots moved Diggs’ three-year, $63.5MM contract off their payroll in March, signing Romeo Doubs to a four-year deal worth $68MM ($35MM fully guaranteed). The Pats made a bigger commitment to the four-year Packers contributor, and they have been closely linked to A.J. Brown. No agreement is in place, and we last heard the sides were apart on terms — as the Pats are not believed to have put a first-rounder on the table yet. But New England is widely believed to be the frontrunner for the Philadelphia wideout, who is expected to be traded after June 1 for cap purposes.
Diggs will be looking for a fifth NFL team and fourth club in four years. The Bills traded their previous No. 1 receiver to the Texans in April 2024, and after removing three years from his contract, Houston did not re-sign him following a midseason ACL tear. Diggs rewarded the Patriots, leading the team in receiving (with 1,013 yards) and scoring four touchdowns to help Drake Maye‘s MVP push — which ended in a close runner-up finish. The Pats rode to Super Bowl LX with Diggs as their top target but decided to move on before a $6MM guarantee was due March 13.
Joining Tyreek Hill, Deebo Samuel and DeAndre Hopkins in the 30-something wing of free agent receivers, Diggs should be able to generate interest. A deal coming together, especially with the pass catcher not coming off injury like he was in 2025, in the near future — now that a contract would not affect a team’s 2027 compensatory formula — would not be difficult to envision now that this legal matter is in the past.
Woo Hoo Bring that sugar bowl full of powder back to Mn and be the Vikings #4 receiver out of camp for vets min!!!!!!!!
Well, I guess that improves his free agent stock. The Raiders could use a receiver if they’re comfortable bringing in the person.
They should just wait for Henry Ruggs to get out, I’d imagine they still have the rights
still a trash human being
lol why not come to Atlanta? But no, raiders make most sense
Charges and the twerking chef beat
Her testimony was pitiful. She secured his acquittal 2 minutes after she took the stand
Her shakedown attempt cost him alot of money with the Patriots as well, though the pink powder he had didnt help. I think he should go to the Chargers. They have to continue to help Herbert until their line gets better. He struggles in postseason, though.
I’m hoping that Diggs appears in a Uber Eats commercial with Matthew McConaughey saying “I told you a private chef was a bad idea” 🙂
You’re in advertising aren’t you? I’m just glad all these high class citizens are getting back their opportunities because the only thing worse than having them on a football field would be having them in society without a job.
I think that “Football is a conspiracy to get you to eat more food” thing was pretty clever….lol.
Should come back to Houston
Stroud needs another receiver opposite Dell
Big surprise.
I don’t particularly dig Diggs, but if he was acquitted, why could he “still be subject to NFL discipline under the league’s personal conduct policy?”
Are you seriously asking why a company would have a more stringent personal conduct policy than the law? Have you ever held a job?
That would be logical, but I would ask that you consider the case of Ezekiel Elliott as an example. The league can choose to do what it wants with whatever information it finds.
In this case, I doubt that anything more comes of it. The victim’s testimony was apparently not compelling. That’s not the end all be all by any means, though. Courtroom testimony also does not always line up with other facts in an investigation, so there is a possibility that better evidence exists (or does not). This does give Diggs great grounds to appeal any punishment that he could potentially get from the league, though, if I am wrong and it does come down to it.
AK- Is he still facing a Civil Suit? It doesn’t really say. The usual League Investigation from Goodell’s cracker jack investigators is to play poker in the back room and let the police do it. The NFL could have it on video and still wouldn’t watch or even acknowledge what was on it( Ray Rice).
Diggs hasn’t been sued civilly for this offense, but yes, he could definitely still be sued (he’s got a different suit ongoing from another matter that this likely doesn’t affect).
Thing is, he may end up suing her. Apparently the chef had faked or altered grocery receipts, and was facing a demand for money in regards to those. She alluded to or admitted to deleting texts saying that she would target Diggs in her courtroom testimony. Her testimony seemed extremely problematic, and probably put enough on the table to make a civil suit very difficult on her end-but possibly much easier on Diggs’. As I said before, having terrible courtroom testimony is its own beast, and isn’t necessarily indicative of innocence or guilt, but it becomes a major factor in any further developments because it is all sworn. It can be referenced any time, and taken as on the record statements, so it’s always relevant.
So, yes, Diggs could still be sued civilly, but it seems like that would be a very difficult move for the chef. If anything, the testimony raised questions about the chef’s own conduct more than it did Diggs’. Of course, Diggs didn’t take the stand (defense attourneys will avoid doing this at nearly every opportunity, almost nothing good for their client comes from it, and the client has, in a criminal setting, a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination that complicates compelling testimony from the prosecutor’s end), so there’s nothing for the NFL to gather from him as a source. If Diggs wanted to pursue criminal charges alleging a false report, the state would need to allege that the victim knowingly filed the report using false information. If the state had evidence like that, and still went to trial, they really screwed up, so there may not be as much, but given how poorly the chef’s testimony went, there might actually be something that could be used there.
I wouldn’t expect that, though, for those reasons-usually, if that’s going to happen, it happens before the case goes to trial. If case has gone to trial, it means that the state is convinced that it has enough to have a chance to secure a conviction. Diggs could, however, sue the chef for multiple reasons, either related to the charges themselves (defamation, in a way, is sort of like a civil version of a fake police report-the person knowingly made false statements to harm someone’s reputation), or for whatever Diggs was originally upset with her for (likely the receipts for the purchases over which this feud may have been based).
And, of course, none of this compels the NFL to go any certain way with anything. If they want, they could investigate Diggs right now based on some particular revelation that they feel violates their Personal Conduct Policy. I don’t expect that, though, because this trial gave Diggs plenty of material to cite in an appeal. At first, I wouldn’t expect Diggs to sue the chef, but do remember that, while New England didn’t directly cite this case, Diggs was cut shortly after this trial became a news item, after a successful year, and nearly derailed his Super Bowl appearance (in my opinion, it should not have been rescheduled, no matter the level of evidence-too many people wait too long on criminal trials to actually proceed for special treatment to be dispensed. They need to be done faster, not slower). That may compel Diggs to file a suit of his own, where before he might just have moved on.
But the short answer to your question is yes, Diggs could potentially still face a civil suit.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal cases. The NFL can discipline a guy if they think there’s a 60% chance he’s guilty. Ben Roethlisberger was disciplined by the NFL.
Just what you like isn’t it? Big contracts, faking injured reserve, holding out from training camp but league punishment for hearsay with evidence which has been rejected in court. You’re a weirdo, Oooof.
Says the guy who’s bizarrely fixated on me. I literally said nothing that isn’t factually true. Go do anything else with your time other than harangue me for things I didn’t even say.
No, you calumniated yet again. Diggs has been pronounced innocent by a court of law. You again insist he’s guilty as accused. This is a pattern of behaviour with you.
Take a bit of responsibility for your actions, Oooof.
Courts don’t pronounce people innocent, but also nowhere in any comment have I insisted he’s guilty as accused. I don’t need to take responsibility for actions that are entirely in your imagination. You seem to be having another psychological episode. Take it elsewhere.
Regardless of the outcome in court, the NFL will discipline you if your actions bring shame on the shield (unless you’re Richard Sherman).
If the pats can’t get Brown they should just bring him back and sign Tyreek. Can’t get more toxic than that
The standard to prove liability in civil or employment contracts is “preponderance of evidence” meaning more evidence for than against. Diggs was found not guilty in criminal court which has a higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. A jury found Diggs not guilty after hearing all the evidence. Makes it much harder (but not impossible) to get a civil judgement. So the NFL should drop it. Going after Diggs wouldn’t be a good look.
Keep him out of the NFC South please. Despite his history of being combustion fodder, he can ball.
I don’t know what kind of world we live in, that someone could get up on a Stand and lie like that, playing with another human being’s freedom… For a little bit of Money??
So does the accuser goto jail for falsifying statements?
Failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Diggs committed these crimes doesn’t mean you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed a felony.
Salivating over another person who has been exonerated by a court of law but who will be judged and hounded by Oooof and everyone like him for the rest of his life?
Couldn’t find a witch to burn in the 21st century, so you decided to go after Diggs instead.
Court rules for Diggs, he’s a witch. Court rules against Diggs, he’s a witch. Burn her, burn her, shrieked 16th century Oooof.
Once again you’re going on a bizarre tirade in response to a comment I made in which everything I said is factually true. Go get some exercise or take some deep breaths or read a book or do literally anything else. Whatever’s wrong with you is not my responsibility.
What’s wrong with you, Oooof is the question. To systematically calumniate and gin up lynch mobs is extremely uncool.
Gin up lynch mobs? Where did I do that? Read my actual comment and quote back to me where I did that or shut the f-ck up. My comment is entirely factual. There’s nothing for you to be this mad about other than the crap you project onto me for whatever reason and your weird delusional temper.
Stop swearing and calm down. Take some responsibility for your innuendo.
Maybe it’s time to finally put a stop to your attempts to lynch men who have been exonerated in a court of law.
Calm down? You’re bringing insane, delusional hostility for days over things I obviously didn’t say or do—which you do to me every few weeks on a football transactions website—and you want ME to calm down? My attempts to lynch men? How insane are you? You use an archaic word like columniate against me repeatedly when that’s what you’re trying to do here—on a football transactions website. Shut up and don’t respond to me anymore.
Hit a little close to home, Oooof? Time to stop your reckless slander against who have been found innocent by a jury of their peers.
Hit close to home? No, I dislike it when unhinged people make up ridiculous things about me. And I know you’re not from here, but in the American court system, juries don’t find defendants innocent, they find them not guilty.
Find another hobby you deranged troll.
I’ll call out a hypocrite and calumniator when I see him. Stop persecuting innocent men Oooof.
You’re the one hiding in the shadows of anonymity to slyly practice your slander.
I haven’t slandered anyone. I haven’t persecuted anyone. I told you to quote back to me where I did what you’re claiming or shut the f-ck up. It’s time to shut the f-ck up.
Sober up, take your meds, and go away forever.
What’s interesting is the prosecution believed there was probable cause Diggs committed the crime. But the jury after 30 minutes (which is the absolute minimum time) of deliberations, said not guilty. So clearly there wasn’t anything to the charges.
He celebrated the acquittal with the fam and 2 oz’s of pink cocaine
Before that, he enjoyed pink powdered salt on his steak and baked potato!
You know what they say. If the elbow don’t fit, you must acquit