(1) Dr. Meehan, Sgt. Gottlieb, Inv. Himan, and Inv. Soucie are to blame for either providing him with inaccurate information, or for inaccurately memorializing conversations with him. All statements that he made were accurate representations of the information he had received. Despite the statements in Gottlieb’s notes and the insinuations in Soucie’s, he never directed the police investigation.
(2) In the American justice system, the state is not compelled to turn over reports of tests that it conducts. It simply has to turn over the underlying data. If defendants can afford top-rate attorneys to interpret the data, that’s fine. If they can’t, they’re out of luck. This, it’s worth reiterating, is the man the state NAACP has propped up for 10 months.
(3) Nifong has no memory of the April 10 meeting between himself, Meehan, Gottlieb, and Himan—referenced in the police notes and by Meehan in his December 15 testimony. Therefore, according top his best recollection, he sought indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty without knowing the results of any of Meehan’s tests.
(4) None of his public statements violated the bar’s ethics codes because either (a) he had not sought indictments, though his office had publicly identified 46 suspects, the same 46 suspects he was talking about in his public statements; (b) he was entitled to speak out under comment (7) of Rule 3.6, which states, “Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a question under this Rule may be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer’s client.” Nifong’s response did not mention the identity of his “client.”(5) Though the March 23 non-testimonial order said that DNA would exonerate the innocent, he is not bound by that order, since someone else from his office wrote it.
(6) Nifong has now provided the fourth different explanation of why he did not turn over the exculpatory DNA material to the defense. First, he stated in court that he had not heard of the issue until Dec. 13, when the defense filed a motion on the question. Second, he stated in a press conference on Dec. 15 that he had not turned the information over for privacy reasons. Third, he stated in a NYT article that he had not turned the information over because of his excessive workload. Now, he says he didn't turn the information over because he didn't have to.
(7) Despite claims by several defense attorneys, Nifong denies ever having refused to meet with defense attorneys to consider exculpatory evidence.
(8) Since a trial date had not yet been set, Nifong was under no obligation to turn over exculpatory evidence.
(9) In an example of unmitigated gall, Nifong demands that the state bar* pay his legal bills.
(10) Nifong offers a novel explanation as to why he didn't have to turn over notes of his conversations with Meehan: the defense asked for these notes, but Judges Stephens and Smith denied the requests. Left unmentioned by Nifong: Stephens and Smith denied the requests because Nifong misled them in court. This is the perfect defense: attorneys can lie to judges to get favorable rulings, and then cite those favorable rulings as justification for their misconduct.
(11) An excellent point, from a commenter at 4.40pm: "To add one more point, Nifong's 'corroboration' argument reveals a profound misunderstanding of his role in the case: as a prosecutor, he wasn't supposed to be looking for evidence of guilt and turning a blind eye to evidence of innocence; to the contrary, he was always supposed to be looking at all of the evidence. In other words, he's literally pleading one ethical failure (failing to examine all of the evidence) as a defense to an allegation that he's unethical. It's amazing that his attorneys forgot his ethical duty was to search for justice, not just evidence of guilt."
(12) This response substantially increases the likelihood of disbarment. The Bar's job is to protect the public. Nifong's response effectively says he would behave the exact same way in the future. The Bar cannot allow a rogue DA to remain in office.