I'm a former criminal defense lawyer among other things, and have a couple of thoughts considering where everything is right now. If you don't want to read my lengthy screed, the short of it is I think that they are serious charges but I don't think they will result in a criminal conviction or Diggs not playing for the time being (qualified, of course, that no other damning facts come out).
I've read all the posts, the incident report, screenshot of the text argument, etc. At first, I was afraid this was a domestic violence situation, which thankfully this is not. Despite the cook being a domestic worker, that doesn't make this domestic violence. She would need to be a girlfriend, family member, etc. That she had a room in the house, however, slightly complicates the situation where she may be considered a housemate. Right now, however, it does not appear that this is considered a domestic dispute, but clearly a business/labor dispute. There is no suggestion of sexual assault either. That definitely lowers the stakes. Simple assault is bad, no question, but both those take things to a higher level.
The bad things: Diggs is charged with crimes, currently filed in court, which is always a serious, real life matter. Especially with one count being a felony. And it does seem that there was some sort of altercation, backed up by the text exchange, adding credence to her claim. The cops are obviously taking her seriously by filing the charges. And the accusation that he, a larger and physically dominating person assaulted a woman in her own room, is bad optics and definitely doesn't go over well with the courts or public. Once legal charges are filed, no matter how spurious, they need to be dealt with. And it's been plastered all over the news (I saw it on the national ABC nightly news tonight). So Diggs needs to be careful, keep his mouth shut and get good legal representation (which he appears to have done) as these charges won't go away on their own.
It's not necessarily true that she was illegally in the house after being fired and he had a right to kick her out. We do not know the terms of her living arrangement, but it's likely she'd be considered a tenant under Massachusetts law (the definition is very broad and judge's bend over backwards on behalf of the tenants). So despite being fired, she may still have had a legal right to be there unless/until Diggs brought (and won) an eviction action in court, a lengthy process that takes months. At this point, it does not appear to be an issue although it may come up later if Diggs tries to bring a protection of home defense (similar to self-defense).
The good things (if you can call them that, I think they are if I were Diggs criminal attorney): Substantively, she waited weeks to make her complaint and failed to preserve any evidence. When I was practicing in the 90s that may not seem so unusual, but these days everyone has a camera on their cell phone (and she apparently had two). So not only does the prosecution have a weaker case because there is no physical evidence of the complained resulting injury (redness on chest), it also casts some doubt on the credibility of the accuser. Credibility is especially important in a he said/she said situation, and not only is there no evidence to back her claim, she failed to preserve the evidence that did exist and would corroborate her story although she had every means to do so.
Another substantive issue is the presence of not only a labor dispute, but also some suggestion of a business financing arrangement? (if the screenshot of the text exchange is authentic about him promising to give her money for her business) That makes this whole situation, and their relationship, a lot more complicated. Remember, the prosecution need to prove Diggs guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Having a disgruntled, stiffed employee file a criminal complaint a couple weeks after quitting/being fired looks bad enough for the prosecutors, add in this new wrinkle of a reneged promise to pay for a business and all that entails. Diggs' attorney could twist her up in knots on the witness stand working through all this stuff. The suggestion of a financial (or emotional) motive of the accuser to make up, or at least embellish, what happened during the altercation, or just confusion by things becoming so complicated, may create enough doubt for a jury not to convict.
As for the communications by the possible girlfriend ("you don't need to do all this, it's not that big of a deal"), I am not sure how they play into things. They may not be admissible - certainly as admissions coming from Diggs himself (which are admissible). But Diggs didn't send those messages so they can't be directly attributable to him, and the accuser could not even identify who the person was sending her those messages. I can easily see the court keeping them out of evidence as hearsay or as overly prejudicial to Diggs. Besides, even if the jury hears them, they fit into the civil nature of the dispute (labor/wage claims), and support Diggs contention that nothing happened.
I think the procedural issues favors Diggs as well. The police did not arrest him, take him into custody or file charges on their own, which they had every right to do. This all rests on the motivation of the accuser - it just doesn't seem the police feel as strongly about it as they sat on the charges. Diggs hasn't even been arraigned yet, so it's still very early in the case. I believe the recent court appearance was brought by Diggs' attorney to keep the filing sealed from the public (and possibly move the arraignment date). It's unclear if a district attorney has even looked at this case yet. Quite often charges get reduced or dropped from the original police charge once the DA's office gets the file and evaluates all the evidence. I wouldn't be surprised to see the felony get dropped due to the weakness of the evidence and how it highly charges the case or even the charges altogether.
The procedural situation and weakness of evidence also allows for the case to be settled between the parties, which ordinarily isn't done in criminal law where the defendant buys out the accuser and the DA is ok with it. But because this is also a civil labor/wage matter, they can settle it in that regard and, as this case entirely rests on the motivation and testimony of the accuser. If she decided to not testify the State has no case. The DA would probably be relieved (and the judge may be trying to work out a settlement, too). It's one thing to file a complaint against someone, it's another to prosecute it to conviction. If the case was stronger and there was physical evidence of an assault, my guess is that a settlement with the accuser probably wouldn't fly with the DA and/or court. But if no more evidence comes out for the prosecution, and especially if new evidence comes out in bad light to the accuser, I can see the DA not wanting to have to go to trial on this.
So how does this all work out? I have no idea. She could be trying to work this to her advantage, but I also think it sounds like there is a legitimate beef with how Diggs treated her as an employer (after all, there is the possibility he is an a**hole to work for). He told her he didn't need her for a week in November, and she still wanted to be paid for the entire month, fair enough. That's not gold digging. Also, waiting a couple of weeks because she was unsure to come forward due to his celebrity is not implausible either, especially if she was still hoping to get paid (which apparently she hasn't yet). For his part, although what she was demanding may be a pittance compared to his salary, I am sure he is used to (as many stars and celebrities are) of people constantly trying to screw them over, take advantage and treat them like money bags. And maybe she is asking for way more than she deserves. We really need to see the personal chef contract or know what was agreed to. There is so much left to unpack in this whole thing - a lot more questions than answers.
That's why I think this case is ripe for settlement - it is weak criminally and Diggs is motivated now to pay much, much more than was originally disputed to make this go away. The longer this goes on, the more likely evidence comes out against her, her motivations, her character, etc. The pressure for her to settle will be intense not only with the money being offered, but the exposure and scrutiny of her personal life as well. This could go on for a long time, months at least and probably a lot longer, with a lot of pain and no guarantee of success - conversely the settlement can happen now. Most cases settle and there's no reason to think why this one, which was originally about money after all, won't either once emotions cool.
As for the NFL, with this not being a domestic assault or sexual assault situation, where there is no physical evidence of any injury and no apparent permanent injury, the accuser declining from getting a protection order against Diggs and feeling safe enough to go back to his house. the State not bringing the charges on their own or arresting Diggs, and with all the confusing labor, business and money arrangements tied up between the parties, they would probably be wise to stay out of it until this all clears up. This is really just a civil suit that got a little emotional and out of hand (although if he did assault her he should be punished, but that probably will never be proved as discussed above). Of course, all this can change with new evidence coming out so all of this is qualified.
I just hope that Diggs, and the team, focus on the task at hand and don't let this become a problematic distraction. He's had a sensational couple of games since this has happened, so hopefully that's a good sign. And he should take care of his personal, private life and not let it effect his team in the future. Fairly settling this thing would be a good start.
Go Pats!
