Nifong Trial, Day Three

Highlights from Day Three of the Nifong ethics trial:

1.) Brad Bannon provided all the evidence of guilt needed.

Bannon’s testimony provided an overpowering litany of Nifong’s ethical failures. Over and over and over again, Bannon highlighted opportunities in which an ethically sound prosecutor could have brought the case to a close.

The Bar needs nothing beyond the evidence provided by Bannon to strip Nifong of his license.

Bannon also managed to use wit to call out many of the villains of the case: Linwood Wilson (not law enforcement, “but he has a badge”); Nancy Grace (“Who cares what Nancy Grace says?”); and Duff Wilson (who has continued his slanted coverage even into these proceedings.

2.) Bannon was the real DNA expert.

In two minutes, Bannon did a better and clearer job of explaining DNA than did Dr. Brian Meehan.

3.) Marsha Goodenow was a devastating witness.

Charlotte ADA Marsha Goodenow pulverized Nifong with her testimony.

It was “highly unlikely,” she noted, for North Carolina prosecutors to file rape charges in cases where the only evidence was the contradictory stories of an accuser.

Fair prosecutors want the defense to turn over exculpatory evidence, and even shady ones want such evidence, if only to know what the defense has.

Prosecutors have no problem with interviewing the alleged victim of a crime. The lineup pursued by Mike Nifong violated normal procedures. It’s always improper for a prosecutor to express personal opinions on guilt either before or after indictments. It is not proper to turn over selective evidence for an NTO report. Exculpatory evidence must be turned over immediately upon receipt. She had never seen a case where evidence that was “so clearly exculpatory” was not turned over.

Over and over again, Goodenow challenged Nifong’s performance. Even Duff Wilson had to portray her as damaging Nifong's case.

4.) Some aspects of Nifong’s misconduct were almost inexplicable.

State Bar Grievance Committee chairman Jim Fox pointed out transparent misstatements of facts in Mike Nifong’s Dec. 28 letter responding to the Bar.

a.) Nifong didn’t mention a March 30 oral briefing from the state lab on DNA.

b.) Nifong falsely asserted that he hadn’t met or spoken with Dr. Meehan before the Seligmann/Finnerty indictments.

How, exactly, could Nifong ever think he could get away with such obvious failures to report truthfully?

5.) Forecasting tomorrow.

Reade Seligmann is the Bar’s last witness. To the extent a Nifong defense has emerged, it involves the following principles:

a.) SANE Nurse Tara Levicy said there was a rape, so it was acceptable for Nifong to publicly say a rape occurred.

b.) The police believed a rape occurred, so it was acceptable for Nifong to publicly say a rape occurred.

c.) Meehan’s report was an “interim report,” even if no one identified it as such as the time.

d.) Meehan’s report mentioned “non-probative” items, which everyone should have known meant multiple, unidentified male DNA, even if no one interpreted it that way at the time and Nifong has never used this excuse before.

e.) A trial date hadn’t been set, so Nifong could do what he wanted regarding turning over evidence.

f.) The state law requirement that all subjects of a non-testimonial order immediately receive the results did not—for reasons that remain unspecified—apply to Nifong.

None of these arguments strike me as winning ones. But they do raise the possibility than in addition to seeing Mike Nifong, the defense might call Tara Levicy to the stand.