Stefon Diggs may have walked away from a Texas courtroom a free man on Tuesday, but his legal victory doesn't mean he's in the clear with the NFL. The star free-agent receiver was acquitted on charges of strangulation and assault, yet the league's investigation into the incident is far from over.

"We have been monitoring all developments in the matter which remains under review of the Personal Conduct Policy," an NFL spokesperson confirmed.

Here's the key difference: while the criminal justice system requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," the NFL operates under a much lower standard when evaluating potential violations of its Personal Conduct Policy. A not-guilty verdict simply means prosecutors didn't meet that high bar—it doesn't mean the league can't take action.

The case centered on testimony from alleged victim Mila Adams, who, despite some credibility issues raised during cross-examination on other topics, provided what sources describe as clear and unequivocal testimony about the incident itself. If Adams chooses to cooperate with the NFL, the league could interview her directly and make its own determination about what happened.

Perhaps most significantly, Diggs exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the criminal trial—but that constitutional protection doesn't extend to the NFL's investigative process. When the league comes calling, Diggs won't be able to simply plead the Fifth.

This wouldn't be unprecedented territory. In 2022, the NFL suspended Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson for 10 games despite him never being indicted by a grand jury. The league's in-house justice system may lack subpoena power and have other flaws, but it has consistently shown a willingness to act independently of the courts.

For Diggs, Tuesday's acquittal was a win in the courtroom. But the real game may still be ahead of him in the league office.