Kathryn Jean is the first witness after lunch.
Appearing under subpoena with the State Bar file dealing with Nifong grievance.
Begins by discussing her grievance notice to Nifong re DNA—December 19, 2006 letter of notice and substance of grievance; and Nifong’s wild Dec. 28, 2006 response. A long pause ensues while Nifong attorney Jim Glover reads (for the first time?) the Dec. 28 letter.
Nifong response, as read by Kathryn Jean: in that, Nifong conceded that Meehan had told him about the unidentified male DNA. Also reads from Nifong response to the Bar: Smith’s “failure” to sanction him showed that Smith believed he had not behaved unethically.
[Nifong is, in effect, being hoisted by his own words, ad his varying stories in his responses to the Bar.]
In his Jan. 16 response to the Bar, Nifong conceded that Meehan had told him about the multiple unidentified male DNA.
Glover has no x-examination of Jean.
State rests without calling Meehan.
Statements weren’t literally true, but weren’t intentionally false. Nifong turned over all the relevant evidence—just didn’t turn over the additional evidence. But this wasn’t all that relevant, since defense attorneys already knew no matches existed.
[What does any of this have to do with what Nifong said on Sept. 22 to the court?]
Glover: Nifong’s statement to court result of unintentional negligence. ‘The evidence turned over had already establish conflicts with the victim’s story about how this sexual assault occurred.”
Smith: motion to dismiss denied.
Meehan called by defense, and Mr. Obfuscation takes the stand, wearing his “DNA Security” shirt. Glover wants to be able to treat Meehan as a hostile witness, subject to rules of x-exam. Smith denies the request.
Meehan gives bgrd educationally and work; allowed to testify as expert witness in forensic DNA testing.
Meehan: “I get pretty nervous. Can I get a drink of water?”
Glover: wants to talk about Meehan’s terms.: Were you contacted by an investigator with the DPD named “Soushie”? [Actually, her name was Soucie.]
Glover: contention is that the only reason Nifong went to Meehan was that the SBI had found some evidence on fingernail, but couldn’t take it further, and therefore needed more sensitive tests.
Glover: Is it the practice to keep notes? Meehan: No.
Glover: key issue was when DSI got the fingernail evidence, and DSI didn’t get the fingernail evidence right away.
April 10 meeting. Glover goal now seems to be to expose Meehan’s obfuscationist tendencies, to show that there’s no way Nifong could ever have understood what the lab director was saying. Meehan is using his customary bizarre analogies, comparing DNA work to putting a piece of paper in a copier machine and getting 500 copies. He doesn’t say why this comparison is relevant.
Smith: “speed it up.”
Meehan: “I’m not sure where your question is going.”
Glover AGAIN focuses in on the fingernail—suggesting AGAIN that the only purpose of Meehan’s testing was for the fingernail, despite the fact that Meehan tested on everything.
Meehan continuing with technicalities of DNA testing—again part of Glover’s “bore-the-court” strategy.
Now compares YSTR testing to surnames in the phonebook.
Meehan: If I have a Y chromosome profile, how likely is it that Mr. Bannon has that profile?”
Glover “Let me back up.” Glover is now moving through a borderline incomprehensible line of questioning. He appears to be confusing Meehan, who in turn is confusing him.
Meehan rebukes Glover’s question—not a correct premise on use of DNA.
“takes a long time, takes a lot of training” to understand the DNA process; DNA profiling can’t be done off the cuff, “and we don’t allow it to be done off the cuff.”
Meehan is continuing to ramble on about specific DNA protocols that have nothing specifically to do with the case.
Glover: “Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I’ll make all sorts of mistakes.”
Finally, after around 40 minutes, gets around to specifics of the case.
Meehan: Evans DNA was the “big match that we found”
Meehan states that his lab continues to do sexual assault cases(!)
Meehan: “If you don’t mind, I want to rephrase your question a little bit.”
Glover: “let me take you back to the facts of this case.” (at 4.15pm, when he took the stand at 3.20pm)
Glover is now speaking in even more of a monotone, as he and Meehan inch through the specifics of what DSI received.
Glover: “evidence on a fingernail . . . is how all this got started.” [an extraordinary misreading of this case in general and the role of DNA in this case specifically]
Has phone call with Nifong re unidentified male DNA—Nifong says “not easy to understand,” and they set up the first meeting.
Meehan: “That’s a great question” (re partial profiles and whether they matched any of the lacrosse players)
April 12—receive add’l information—public hair combing, fingernails
Now showing Meehan SBI report
Glover: “extracted DNA is ultimately what you profiled” in testing.
Also—suggests that Meehan was constantly getting new info to test; Nifong’s response therefore appropriate
April 21—focus of meeting was possible match to Dave Evans’ fingernail.
Meehan supplementary report—28 March 2007
While Glover constantly uses the name of the falsely accused—Dave Evans—he never uses the name of the false accuser—Crystal Mangum. She’s generally described as the “alleged victim.”
Glover is now referring to a Defendants’ Exhibit 2—which doesn’t exist.
Glover is now asking Meehan to speculate on what could have been discussed at April 21 meeting.
At each meeting, “we discussed what we had data on prior to that meeting”—recapped previous meetings, and then talked about new items.
Glover: in first two meetings, was there discussion of a report? Meehan: discussion about a report early on, perhaps even in phone calls. “we both agreed that that was a concern” (the privacy issue)
April 21st—discussion of report in greater detail: “gist of the conversation was that Nifong wasn’t prepared a conclusive report on the case, but he did have a need” for report
Nifong said he didn’t need it right away, but that he would call before he needed report. His understanding was that it was one of a series of reports that would occur before trial.
Meehan: Most labs don’t report DNA profiles; his does, and he’s always done so.
Smith lectures Meehan: “When you hear an objection, stop talking.”
Meehan on why May 12 report was prepared: “I don’t know why I know it now, but I know it.”
Nifong “agreed” with his concerns—“he didn’t object to it.”
No agreement to withhold exculpatory evidence.
[But, of course, the decision to withhold on privacy grounds, in the context of this case, led to the withholding of exculpatory evidence.]
“It was my opinion that he was concerned with the same thing that all of our clients are concerned with—whether or not those evidence items matched any suspects.”
[Again, Glover doesn’t seem to be dealing with the events of the Sept. 22 hearing at all.]
Meehan: “interim report”—usually conveyed verbally. “For whatever reason—it was unusual—Mr. Nifong needed the report in writing. He was my client.”
“I don’t think that the term ‘interim report’ ever came up.”
[Glover’s apparent strategy: suggesting that because Meehan is so boring, there’s no way Nifong could have remained awake during their meetings, explaining why Nifong couldn’t recall the conversations.]