Verdict

Committee is unanimous on all issues on all the contested issues in the case.

1) Extrajudicial statements: Yes.
2) Did Nifong know that these statements would be disseminated? Yes.
3) Did Nifong know that these statements would materially prejudice proceeding? Yes.
4) Did Nifong statements have substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of accused? Yes. Note of explanation: The "accused" in this instance includes the set of suspects (the lacrosse players). Not necessary to make finding as a legal matter that they were actually indicted.

5) By making misleading statements to media, did Nifong engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation? No. The one statement at issue on this point (possible use of condoms) no worse than certain others that were not alleged to involve dishonesty--such as the statement to the effect that the accused were not cooperating. Therefore, not appropriate to pick out this statement as the worst of the group.

6) Failure to provide DNA evidence report failed to provide necessary exculpatory evidence? Yes; Failed to make reasonably diligent effort to deal with discovery effort? Yes.

7) Failure to provide memorializations of Meehan statements: (a) fail to make timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence? Yes. (If anything, Bar's charge was too narrow.) (b) failed to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with discovery request? No. [AG had taken position that prosecutors did not need to provide such memorializations, though this is no longer the law.]

8) Failure to provide complete report of all Meehan tests (a) failed to make timely disclosure to defense all material required by law and court opinions? Yes. (b) failed to disclose evidence or information that he should have known was subject to disclosure under applicable law. Yes.

9) Failure to provide memorializations of Meehan oral reports (a) failed to make timely disclosure to defense of exculpatory evidence? Yes. (b) failed to disclose evidence or information that he knew was subject to disclosure under applicable law? Yes.

10) Instruction of Meehan to have report only positive matches? YES. (b) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving information to another party? No.

11) False statements of material fact to court? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

12) False statements of material fact to opposing counsel? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

13) Failure to disclose everything re DSI report to court--false statements to court? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

14) False claim that all Meehan oral statements included in his report? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

15) Falsely implying to court that he was not aware of DNA results at start of 12-15 hearing? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

16) False statements to State Bar that privacy concerns played a role in Meehan report? No. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? No.

17) False statements to State Bar that Meehan report did not include exculpatory evidence? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES.

18) False statements to State Bar that his 12-15 statements referred to alleged charges against him by Duke defendants' lawyers? Yes. (b) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, deceit? YES. [Notes the consensus of the hearing committee on the above issues: worry that such charges are extremely rare and fear tha such charges might have chilling effect in normal cases.]

19) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice? Yes.