Tomorrow I’ll be in Durham, Mike Nifong faces a criminal contempt hearing before Judge Osmond Smith. (I’ll be live-blogging the event.) At issue, did he lie to the court on September 22, 2006?
Here’s Nifong on September 22, 2006:
Judge Smith: So his report [Meehan’s May 12 report] encompasses it all?
Mr. Nifong: His report encompasses ever -- because we didn’t -- they apparently think that everybody I speak to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that’s just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here.
Judge Smith: So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?
Mr. Nifong: No other statements. No other statements made to me.
Mr. Bannon: Just so I’m clear, Mr. Nifong is representing that the facts of the case weren’t discussed in those meetings.
Mr. Nifong: That is correct. The facts of the case, other than the fact that we were seeking a, the male fraction DNA.
Here are excerpts from Dr. Brian Meehan’s deposition before the State Bar:
At the April 10, 2006 meeting, Meehan said that “we very carefully went over this data,” which included results that the DNA of multiple unidentified males was found on Mangum’s rape kit. Meehan recalled going over the profiles “in detail” with Gottlieb, Nifong, and Himan. Since he considered this information “critical,” he was “absolutely” certain that he discussed it with Nifong on April 10.
Moreover, Meehan remembered that “Mr. Nifong and the two police investigators asked questions.” Indeed, “there were some general questions, to more complex questions. We spent a lot of time talking about it.” Meehan stated that Nifong asked him to try to work on the specimens with the unidentified male DNA to see if better resolution could be obtained. Meehan said that he felt “it was important that [Nifong] understood—and I believe he understood” that there were unidentified male DNA profiles.
And here was Dr. Meehan, at the DHC hearing, explaining what actually occurred in just the first of his three meetings with Nifong, on April 10, 2006: