2019 Patrick Chung Watch: Everybody Yank Chung Tonight

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,256
Maine
A better question is where was Melifonwa and Harmon on the night in question.

"Members of the Jury and Patriot Fans, someone broke into 3x Super Champion Patrick Chungs house. Setting off the Alarm. These perpetrators left behind the cocaine they were intending to use but unfortunately had time to clean up any other evidence when they heard the police approaching and escaped into the woods."
"Seems Plausible".
 

SeoulSoxFan

Dope
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
18,981
Merged the Chung-related posts to the new thread.
Damn it. Eugene never got arrested for cocaine.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,774
Sounds like the house may have been empty when the police arrived. Was Chung even in NH at the time? It's even possible someone else (e.g., his lawn guy) was using the place for a celebration.

The Clapton song better be used on TV when they profile him in-game or it will be complete failure by the broadcast team.
Tears in Heaven? :eyeroll:
 

Couperin47

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Times have certainly changed, back in my day, no matter how much blow was available at any party, the possibility that any, even trace amounts, would still be 'left lying around' to be noticed after the party ended was absolutely zero....
 

TheRealness

Don't make him go all Lucic on your ash
SoSH Member
Feb 8, 2006
10,905
The Dirty Shire
The Belknap County Attorney is over their head on this. I look forward to this being dismissed in the near future.

Only way I see anything resembling a plea or conviction is if they have him actually possessing it physically. Seems like Andrew is looking to get some publicity here, and I would imagine it backfires.

EDIT: Here is Andrew:
 

Salem's Lot

Andy Moog! Andy God Damn Moog!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,134
Gallows Hill
The Belknap County Attorney is over their head on this. I look forward to this being dismissed in the near future.

Only way I see anything resembling a plea or conviction is if they have him actually possessing it physically. Seems like Andrew is looking to get some publicity here, and I would imagine it backfires.

EDIT: Here is Andrew:
He looks like Kevin Millar in a suit and a bad hair piece.
 

Cotillion

lurker
Jun 11, 2019
94
The Belknap County Attorney is over their head on this. I look forward to this being dismissed in the near future.

Only way I see anything resembling a plea or conviction is if they have him actually possessing it physically. Seems like Andrew is looking to get some publicity here, and I would imagine it backfires.

EDIT: Here is Andrew:
Will be really interesting to know where it was found.

Opening doors would be fine for a B&E search. So if it was out on a table they should be okay. Plus out in plain sight, helps him with “I had people crashing on my couch, not mine”.

If it was in a drawer or some other closed space, could see it being excluded.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,584
Only way I see anything resembling a plea or conviction is if they have him actually possessing it physically. Seems like Andrew is looking to get some publicity here, and I would imagine it backfires.

EDIT: Here is Andrew:
...sounds like it's working!
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
4,949
Dorchester, MA
Bedard's BSJ story references a July 25 incident, which was the first day of Pats training camp, so Chung wouldn't have been at the home. That said, Bedard could have typo'd the month.

If he wasn't there, a few interesting questions:

What was the probable cause to enter the home with an alarm going off? Were there signs of forced entry or open/unlocked doors/windows?

If Chung wasn't there and someone else was there, why is this on Chung? If Chung was there, why wasn't he just arrested on scene?

Regardless, very odd circumstance if enough cocaine to lead to a felony possession charge lying in plain sight (I can't think there's PC to do a search of the home).
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,774
Felger was talking about this. He seems completely unaware that sometimes security alarms go off when no one is on the premises, due to power surges/sags, squirrels, or no discernible reason at all.
 
Last edited:

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,644
If he wasn't home during that time period and/or had guests, it's going to be awfully hard to pin him down for having "control or intent to control" the cocaine, unless it was in an area that only Chung had access to (e.g. in his bed stand drawer, or in a safe). However, if that was the case, I don't think there's probable cause to investigate that type of location.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
4,846
If he wasn't home during that time period and/or had guests, it's going to be awfully hard to pin him down for having "control or intent to control" the cocaine, unless it was in an area that only Chung had access to (e.g. in his bed stand drawer, or in a safe). However, if that was the case, I don't think there's probable cause to investigate that type of location.
Unless he is voluntarily celibate, he may not be the only person to have access to a bed stand drawer on any given day. I don't know if he's married (not that it matters either way given that infidelity amongst celebrities, athletes, and even normies is hardly uncommon), but any person (male or female) that he brings home would, presumably, be taken to Pound Town in his bedroom. Unless his house has designated rooms for business time and the master bedroom is under total lock and key. If he's not married, I kind of hope he thought to do that.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Seriously, this was my first thought too. I mean, I guess if you feel like you're isolated enough no one is going to see it but, based on the story, I'm willing to bet it was someone else's cocaine who either had access to his house or got left behind and tried to get in somewhere that was off limits, tripping the alarm, and the person just booked it.
But where does the pizza fit in?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
5,952
Unless he is voluntarily celibate, he may not be the only person to have access to a bed stand drawer on any given day. I don't know if he's married (not that it matters either way given that infidelity amongst celebrities, athletes, and even normies is hardly uncommon), but any person (male or female) that he brings home would, presumably, be taken to Pound Town in his bedroom. Unless his house has designated rooms for business time and the master bedroom is under total lock and key. If he's not married, I kind of hope he thought to do that.
But then which of the rooms would be "Where the magic happens"?
 

Jim Ed Rice in HOF

Red-headed Skrub child
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
3,709
Seacoast NH
Bedard's BSJ story references a July 25 incident, which was the first day of Pats training camp, so Chung wouldn't have been at the home. That said, Bedard could have typo'd the month.

If he wasn't there, a few interesting questions:

What was the probable cause to enter the home with an alarm going off? Were there signs of forced entry or open/unlocked doors/windows?

If Chung wasn't there and someone else was there, why is this on Chung? If Chung was there, why wasn't he just arrested on scene?

Regardless, very odd circumstance if enough cocaine to lead to a felony possession charge lying in plain sight (I can't think there's PC to do a search of the home).
It was June 25th so Bedard did typo the month.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
5,234
Because he was not arrested at the time but they chose to indict him anyways. There's no evidence that the cocaine is his because he was not there when the police were in the house.
Sounds like he wasn’t arrested because he wasn’t home. They took it to Grand Jury to see if they had a case vs the homeowner and the GJ believed they did, so they indicted him. Seems like it’s a biased fan reaction to think this is being made a bigger deal than it should be. After all, he had coke in his house that the police saw.
 

RIrooter09

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
4,485
Because he was not arrested at the time but they chose to indict him anyways. There's no evidence that the cocaine is his because he was not there when the police were in the house.
Yeah this screams of fanboyism. I think the war on drugs is a farce, but you know nothing about the facts of the case.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,360
deep inside Guido territory
Sounds like he wasn’t arrested because he wasn’t home. They took it to Grand Jury to see if they had a case vs the homeowner and the GJ believed they did, so they indicted him. Seems like it’s a biased fan reaction to think this is being made a bigger deal than it should be. After all, he had coke in his house that the police saw.
I'm not looking at it as a fan. I guess this is what a trial will bring, but there could be other people that had access to the house if they're boys with Chung. What part of the house was the coke found? Was it in his bedroom or in a common area of the house? Unless the police can 100% tie the drugs specifically to Chung(such as getting the person that sold the drugs to him and has proof it was Chung that bought them), its going to be a he-said, she-said case.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm not looking at it as a fan. I guess this is what a trial will bring, but there could be other people that had access to the house if they're boys with Chung. What part of the house was the coke found? Was it in his bedroom or in a common area of the house? Unless the police can 100% tie the drugs specifically to Chung(such as getting the person that sold the drugs to him and has proof it was Chung that bought them), its going to be a he-said, she-said case.
Which is just to say we don’t know what evidence there is.

They showed it to a grand jury who felt it was sufficient to indict. So they’ll show it to a jury and see if they think it’s enough to convict, or settle before it gets to that.

That’s how it works and there is almost no information here to suggest anything is normal or not normal-there’s really very little info at all.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,998
A quick google search of constructive possession law in New Hampshire brought up this recent case from the state Supreme Court, which may be interesting to look at regarding the argument of placement of the drugs within the house and others having access:
When, as here, the defendant was not in physical possession of the drugs, the State must prove constructive possession, which can be inferred from circumstances linking him to the controlled substance, such as the presence of his personal possessions near the drugs. Id. Constructive possession of drugs need not be exclusive. Id. When more than one person occupies the premises where drugs were found, mere proof that the defendant was one of those occupants is insufficient to prove constructive possession. Id. However, evidence that the defendant’s personal possessions were in close proximity to the controlled substance may provide a sufficiently close nexus between the defendant and the substance to allow the jury to infer possession. Id. at 718-19. Furthermore, constructive possession may be shown when the defendant knows of the drugs’ presence. State v. Trebian, 164 N.H. 629, 632 (2013).
In this case, the defendant leased a two-bedroom apartment and sublet the bedrooms to two people he knew were dealing drugs; he slept in the living room. The living room had a door directly into the bedroom in which the drugs and equipment for packaging them were found. The photographs of the apartment show that the rooms were small. A police officer, who searched the apartment, testified that the living room was “[v]ery close, within a few feet” of the bedroom.
The defendant contends that he did not have custody or exercise dominion over the drugs because he was an addict and, as a result, his roommates did not trust him with the drugs. However, there was no evidence of any effort to secure the door from the living room into the bedroom where the drugs were found, or the door of the closet in which the drugs were found, or the suitcase containing the drugs. See State v. Saide, 114 N.H. 735, 739 (1974) (finding evidence that roommates had full access to each other’s bedroom when doors were not kept locked).
Furthermore, there was no evidence of drug use in the apartment or among the defendant’s possessions. Although the defendant argues that the spoon and digital scale found in his bureau “were equally indicative of drug use as they were of drug sales,” the spoon did not show burnt residue as would be expected had it been used for drug use. Instead, it showed white residue, consistent with spooning drugs for packaging, allowing a reasonable inference that the defendant had constructive possession of the drugs. The jury also could have found the scale more indicative of the regular need to measure drugs for sale rather than for personal use. If the jury found that the defendant was not a drug user, it could have reasonably inferred that he fabricated this to avoid a finding of constructive possession. Cf. State v. Laudarowicz, 142 N.H. 1, 5 (1997) (stating that jury can infer culpable mental state from defendant’s attempts to deceive police).
The defendant argues that the fact that he was aware that his roommates were selling drugs “does not establish that he constructively possessed the product they were selling.” However, a police officer testified that the defendant described that: (1) the drugs were driven from Lawrence, Massachusetts, in a blue “SUV”; (2) another person, who drove a red Hyundai vehicle, was part of the operation and would store money and drugs; (3) one roommate sent proceeds from the drug sales abroad each week; and (4) the most recent shipment of drugs was received the day before the police searched the apartment. The trier of fact could have reasonably inferred from this level of familiarity with the operation that the defendant was involved in it. See Francis, 167 N.H. at 598.
The defendant argues that: (1) the only evidence that he had access to the bedroom in which the drugs were found was a notice of eviction addressed to him, mailed approximately two weeks earlier, and affixed to the bedroom wall; (2) there was no evidence how close the notice was hung to the closet in which the drugs were found; (3) the notice was a public document; and (4) the fact that he was the primary lessee did not show that he controlled his roommates’ possessions. He also argues that he ran from the apartment when the police arrived to search it, not because he had control over the drugs, but because he was a drug user. However, none of these points compelled the jury to reach a different decision.
Accordingly, we conclude that, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found that it excluded all reasonable conclusions except that the defendant constructively possessed the drugs. See Morrill, 169 N.H. at 718.
 

Soxy Brown

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
4,367
Sounds like the house may have been empty when the police arrived. Was Chung even in NH at the time? It's even possible someone else (e.g., his lawn guy) was using the place for a celebration.
Article on The Athletic is saying the house was empty at the time. Also states "multiple sources" say that Chung was not at the home when the incident occurred.

Sources told The Athletic there were people at Chung’s house that night, but they left the residence to go elsewhere. The house alarm was later triggered, prompting police to report to the scene. Inside, they found cocaine when no one was home, the sources said. No one was arrested that night.

A source close to Chung insisted he doesn’t use cocaine.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,060
I'm not looking at it as a fan. I guess this is what a trial will bring, but there could be other people that had access to the house if they're boys with Chung. What part of the house was the coke found? Was it in his bedroom or in a common area of the house? Unless the police can 100% tie the drugs specifically to Chung(such as getting the person that sold the drugs to him and has proof it was Chung that bought them), its going to be a he-said, she-said case.
Have you never watched Cops??? If it’s your car/house man, it don’t matter if you “have no idea how that got there”.
 

Pandemonium67

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
4,444
Lesterland
That article makes it pretty clear the NFL can't suspend Chung yet, which convinces me they reinstated Gordon to suspend in his place.

On a less light-hearted note, I don't like the distraction -- I'm sure BB doesn't either -- but I'm glad Patrick will be around. This could be a very, very fine year for the Pats, especially for the D, and I'd hate stupid off-the-field stuff to derail it.