Bar Rebuttal

Currently testifying is Tom Anglim--ass't DA in two different prosecutorial districts, graduate of NCCU Law.

Has tried between 200-300 courses; 65% of these cases involved discovery issues.

Responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice. Prosecutor has an obligation to turn exculpatory evidence, immediately, even if it's received orally and not in writing.

Nifong's statements were ethically improper, on two levels: (1) clearly heightened the condemnation of the accused--Nifong's statements effectively "nullified" constitutional protections enjoyed by anyone: right to remain silent, right to counsel, right to rely on the weakness of the state's evidence; (2) statements regarding the evidence that's going to be introduced.

Q: Is conduct of Nifong in the process of responding to discovery consistent with NC practice?
A: No. Results of examinations known on April 10--those results were never disclosed, in any form.

Prosecutors' requirement regarding results of tests are clear--if a prosecutor knows it, he has to give it. Doesn't matter if a trial date has been set.

Has experienced repercussions: in picking juries since last March, if the case is a substantial one, have to talk about the lacrosse case. Everyone knows about it. "It's altered the way we do business." Defense attorneys mention "the thing that's happening in Durham County" as way of heightening concerns with discovery.

Nifong's conduct has affected the "public trust in the integrity of our justice system." The whole purpose of open-file discovery was to avoid problems like this one.

We're now adjourned for the evening.