The morning session resumed with Dr. Brian Meehan returning to the stand. Perhaps on order from the owner of his lab, he was wearing a suit today, rather than his outfit of yesterday, a short-sleeved shirt with “DNA Security” custom embroidery.
Meehan: received no instructions about what to appear.
“Let me clarify something”—“we did talk about not including the DNA profiles of players for which there were no matches.”
“I didn’t document the exact time of those discussions.”
Glover is—if possible—speaking in more of a monotone than he was yesterday, as he and Meehan establish a timeline of Meehan’s testing activity.
Glover, as he did yesterday, is liberal with his use of the lacrosse players’ names, even as he refers to Crystal Mangum as the “alleged victim.”
The number of spectators is much less than yesterday—perhaps people were driven away by Glover’s “bore-the-court” strategy.
Around five minutes into his testimony, Meehan asks for water.
Meehan: “We went through everything in the report.” “We did go over each section . . . when we got to the result sections, we went through those in detail.”
‘We definitely touched upon again that the reference samples were not included” [for privacy reasons]
“And we did go through this one item that was important to me that some reference items that we considered non-probative were not included in this report.”
“We didn’t spend a lot of time on that. It was important for me in issuing this report that everybody understood that there was more information” than what was in the report.
Didn’t see anything improper in discovery request by defense.
Glover—now suggesting that Meehan expected the request to come, therefore why would Nifong have been trying to hide anything?
Nifong asked Meehan to put in writing his concerns about cost and privacy in turning over the underlying DNA data.
After releasing the underlying data, the next communication he had with Nifong was phone call of Dec. 13 based on defense motion.
Nifong tells Meehan that Dec. 13 motion “didn’t shed a nice light on the lab.”
Judge Marcia Morey, as she was yesterday, has come by to express her solidarity for Nifong. She wins the “Kendra Montgomery-Blinn Award” for undermining confidence in the judiciary.
Meehan: defense discovery request “a pain the butt for us”—but concedes the request was appropriate.
Glover is now suggesting that the defense were likely to turn over the underlying data to experts, and therefore couldn’t have been reason to conceal things.
Glover: How long would it have taken an expert to go through this case?
Meehan: could have gone through the case file in 10-20 hours.
[Glover, in short, appears to be returning to the “no harm, no foul” defense.]
Meehan: “I was pretty upset with what was in that document, and I expressed it to Mr. Nifong.”
“company decision that I do go and clarify”—his initial inclination was not to appear.
Bannon: “some things that they didn’t understand completely, that they basically got wrong.”—everything was there (Meehan doesn’t say what Bannon got wrong.)
Glover: Meehan had “little time to prepare”
Meehan: showed up at Nifong’s office on the 15th—“I was greeted by a detective.” (Actually it was Linwood Wilson—but he had a badge . . .)
Didn’t have a discussion with Nifong before his court appearance.
Meehan now explaining what his answer meant on Dec. 15th: “The answer to that question then and now is still yes because it’s a broad question.”
“The intention of Mr. Cooney—“
Meehan is now claiming that he thought Cooney was referring to the non-reporting of the reference profiles.
Meehan: he wasn’t “allowed”(!) to explain himself at the Dec. 15 hearing. [Of course, Nifong cross-examined him.]
[Glover is again steering very clear of the Sept. 22 hearing.]
“I wasn’t concerned with anything being left out of that report” because he hadn’t left anything out of the report(!). [except, of course, all the exculpatory evidence]
Glover then rests.
Charles Davis begins cross-examination.
“We don’t include narratives of discussions in any of our reports.”
Meehan: ‘We did’ discuss all the test results with Nifong.”
“The specific profiles of those reports and the details of those results were not included in the report.”
“I intended to include everything”
“What I left out of the report were specific profiles.”
Meehan: Nifong statement in court was “true” [Meehan is basically lying.]
Then, Meehan concedes that “there’s nothing in that report that includes details of discussions” with Nifong.
Meehan: Nifong’s statement “would be false.” “We don’t include narratives of discussions in any report.”
Concedes “there is no reference to it [May 12] report being an interim report.”
Meehan: received additional reference samples after May 12, did test results, and Meehan told Himan that they had done the additional testing.
Himan—“every occasion, he told Mr. Nifong, and Mr. Nifong told him there was no need to provide a report.”
Meehan: “This is the first time we’ve ever issued an interim report.”
Meehan: Nifong never used “interim” report. But was discussed this wasn’t a report for the trial.
Amended report “attempted to help clarify some of the shortcomings of the [May 12] report.”
[This has not been a good cross-examination for Nifong, at all.]
Concedes that amended report eliminated word “non-probative.”
Between the Dec. 15 and Jan. 10 report, “there were complaints made with our accrediting agency.” Concedes that “the terminology used [in the May 12 report] was not appropriate and did not convey my intent.”
DSI protocols have nine items that must be included in all reports. Meehan again concedes that report didn’t meet protocols.
Meehan: “I’ll go both ways here” in interpreting his lab’s protocols as they apply to the May 12 report.
Concedes he had never before issued a report that didn’t list results of all tests.
“I can’t answer your question”
“We have never issued an interim report.”—Mr. Obfuscation in action, refusing to answer the questions, or rephrasing the questions as he preferred.
“We’ve been through a lot of inspections” in last eight months.
“We would have been more than happy to issue a final report”—but not his responsibility to issue a final report, was Nifong’s responsibility. Concedes, however, that no one asked for amended report in Jan. 2007.
“Individuals from our accrediting agency and other advisors” told him to issue the Jan. 2007 report.
Meehan seems to blame the defense attorneys—they should have just called him up and asked him about the report(!!).
Jan. 10 document: “an amended report to the report.”
Glover has no redirect questions.
Judge Marcia Morey is now called—has been a district court judge in
Morey: Nifong as
Nifong an advocate of “equal playing field”
[This line of argument by Glover is an odd one: essentially, he’s saying that Nifong had a practice of turning over everything. If so, that makes his decision not to do so in this case all the more striking.]
Morey: don’t have luxury to read all documents when you have 100 or other cases. [But, of course, Nifong had no other cases at the time of the Sept. 22 hearing.]
X-exam, by Boyd Sturgis
Gets Morey to concede that turning over incomplete report would be misleading, and contrary to Nifong usual practice.
Morey: hypothetically, a lawyer saying there was nothing in discussions beyond what was in the report, and learning later that the report didn’t contain everything, would be less-than-candor—but “makes a difference” if not in a trial stage(!).
[She wasn’t very helpful to Nifong.]
David Saacks now testifies on Nifong’s behalf.
Glover now introduces the March 23 NTO—a document that should have been recognized as fraudulent at the time, and is demonstrably untrue now.
Saacks: Nifong had open-file discovery policy; his approach—if you have something to hide, probably shouldn’t prosecute the case.
Saacks went out of his way in the x-exam to distance himself from the case. He reiterated—as first came out at the Bar trial—that ADA Tracey Cline was prepared to assist Nifong in the case.