BOSTON — New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs on Friday pleaded not guilty to felony strangulation and other criminal charges stemming from an alleged dispute with his personal chef.
Massachusetts Dedham District Court Judge Jeanmarie Carroll released Diggs, 32, on personal recognizance and ordered him to have no contact with the alleged victim. A pretrial hearing was scheduled for April 1.
Wearing a white shirt and tie under a gray sweater, Diggs stood beside his attorney during the brief proceeding, which lasted less than five minutes. Both Diggs and his legal representation declined to speak with reporters.
The arraignment was originally scheduled for Jan. 23 but was postponed so Diggs could play in Super Bowl LX. The Patriots lost 29-13 to the Seattle Seahawks.
According to court records, the chef told Dedham officers she and Diggs argued about money he owed her for her work. During the Dec. 2 encounter at his home, she said, he “smacked her across the face” and then “tried to choke her using the crook of his elbow around her neck,” leaving her feeling short of breath. She told officers she had trouble breathing and felt she could have blacked out.
Diggs’ attorney has said he “categorically denies these allegations,” calling them unsubstantiated and motivated by a financial dispute. Diggs is charged with one count of felony strangulation or suffocation and one count of misdemeanor assault and battery.
The Patriots released a statement saying they support him.
Police said the woman first reported the incident Dec. 16 and initially hesitated to pursue charges before later requesting them, according to court documents.
Diggs signed a three-year, $69 million contract with New England in the offseason and was a key target for quarterback Drake Maye during the Patriots’ run to the Super Bowl. Before joining the Patriots, Diggs was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings in 2015 and played for the Buffalo Bills before a brief stint with the Houston Texans in 2024.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less