Jump to content

Patriots S Patrick Chung indicted for cocaine possession


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Buc Ball said:

It’s not really substance abuse though, it’s just possession at this stage and he likely won’t fail a drug test.

I think something under the personal conduct policy is the way the NFL will go with this one. It’s not a good look and they’ll probably punish him under those rules since they won’t get him under the substance abuse policy.

You heard it here, folks.

Hard drugs are an especially bad look, so I'd bet on a suspension. (Unless the Magic 8 Ball they use to determine these punishments comes up "OUTLOOK GOOD," in which case Chung will get off with anti-drug community service.)

And seriously, Patrick. The ultimate professional high wasn't enough for you?

Edited by y*so*blu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Depending on where it was, the break in could be a good legal defense. I think he gets 2 games of ASAP or 4 later in the season or next. Pats are a machine and he’ll be missed but the machine rolls on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pnies20 said:

Just read on a google search a felony amount in mass is a half zip. So he had at least that. 

It’s 0.5 g in TN.

it is a felony no doubt even 1 gram is a felony.  I am just talking about intent to sell.  And he got busted in NH not Mass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, pnies20 said:

I missed that... whyyyyyy was he in NH with coke?????

He has a summer home in Meredith, all lakes, really nice area. He did not have the coke on him, but in his house, the cops went to the house when the burglar alarm went off , they then went inside and found the coke when they were looking for the burglar.  I am sure he is saying that the burglar was having a party while he was at minicamp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, patman said:

He has a summer home in Meredith, all lakes, really nice area. He did not have the coke on him, but in his house, the cops went to the house when the burglar alarm went off , they then went inside and found the coke when they were looking for the burglar.  I am sure he is saying that the burglar was having a party while he was at minicamp. 

Didn’t realize Meredith was in NH.

Looks like NH is 1/2 oz for felony also. They had to find other indicators of resale to charge him like that. Could get ugly for him depending on the circumstances. NH doesn’t mess around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pnies20 said:

Didn’t realize Meredith was in NH.

Looks like NH is 1/2 oz for felony also. They had to find other indicators of resale to charge him like that. Could get ugly for him depending on the circumstances. NH doesn’t mess around.

Like I said earlier, legally I don't think it is that big of a deal.  He is just charged with possession, no one goes to jail for a first offense.  Certainly not one with a real lawyer. 

He will get dinged by the league though, and get his 4 games. I hope they suspend him now and not wait until the middle of the season or just before the playoffs, that will really suck. 

Edited by patman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, patman said:

Like I said earlier, legally I don't think it is that big of a deal.  He is just charged with possession, no one goes to jail for a first offense.  Certainly not one with a real lawyer. 

He will get dinged by the league though, and get his 4 games. I hope they suspend him now and not wait until the middle of the season or just before the playoffs, that will really suck. 

He wasn’t just charged with possession. He was indicted for felony cocaine possession (whichever statute it fit, here in TN it would’ve just been possession with intent). The fact that it was indicted is a pretty good indicator the DA wants to prosecute it. 

Not saying he gets jail time necessarily but I could see some probation in his future. 

Does the NFL have an escalating clause that mirrors severity of criminal activity? I’m still not clear on that.

Edited by pnies20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, pnies20 said:

He wasn’t just charged with possession. He was indicted for felony cocaine possession (whichever statute it fit, here in TN it would’ve just been possession with intent). The fact that it was indicted is a pretty good indicator the DA wants to prosecute it. 

Not saying he gets jail time necessarily but I could see some probation in his future. 

Does the NFL have an escalating clause that mirrors severity of criminal activity? I’m still not clear on that.

Simple possession of cocaine is a felony in New Hampshire. You can have up to two 8 balls and not be charged with distributing.   Now if you bagged the 2- 8 balls into quarter bags and you were standing on the corner with a pocket full of 10 dollar bills, they may try to pin  intent to sell, but I can't see how any jury would ever convict a millionaire with $150/200 worth of coke with intent to distribute.  What is the DA is going to try to say that he wanted to make another 50 bucks?  NE isn't Texas. The grand jury did not return a indictment for intent. 

Edited by patman
added
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, patman said:

Simple possession of cocaine is a felony in New Hampshire. You can have up to two 8 balls and not be charged with distributing.   Now if you bagged the 2- 8 balls into quarter bags and you were standing on the corner with a pocket full of 10 dollar bills, they may try to pin  intent to sell, but I can't see how any jury would ever convict a millionaire with $150/200 worth of coke with intent to distribute.  What is the DA is going to try to say that he wanted to make another 50 bucks?  NE isn't Texas. The grand jury did not return a indictment for intent. 

seems to be a pretty easy defense

 

If it was in plain sight, then blame it on the "B&E" suspect

 

If it was in a drawer, then although the cops has reasonable cause to enter the house (to look for signs of a B&E), it was unlikely that the perpetrator was hiding in a drawer, or wherever Chung kept his stash, so if the cops ran sacked the place for no reason, that will likely fall under unlawful search and siezure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheGame316 said:

seems to be a pretty easy defense

 

If it was in plain sight, then blame it on the "B&E" suspect

 

If it was in a drawer, then although the cops has reasonable cause to enter the house (to look for signs of a B&E), it was unlikely that the perpetrator was hiding in a drawer, or wherever Chung kept his stash, so if the cops ran sacked the place for no reason, that will likely fall under unlawful search and siezure

Except for finger prints which are going to be on the bag I presume it was in. Which is why I am assuming he was charged in the first place. 

Edited by Golfman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...