Jean Statement

March 27--Nifong learns that Mangum had twice recanted, learns that she had said 3, 5, and 20 people assaulted her; learns that three captains had cooperated; meeting came at Nifong's urging.

Nifong goes from that meeting to give a variety of public statements--at odds with what he had been told by Himan and Gottlieb--Jean goes through Nifong pre-publicity barrage, expressing Mangum's belief as fact. Jean mentions chokehold appearance.

During this barrage of interviews, Nifong met with Gottlieb and Himan and acknowledged there were serious problems with the case--first time this was revealed.

Nifong learns of the SBI testing on March 30--next day, gives an interview saying he doesn't know results of DNA test--but does reverse his perspective on DNA's value in interviews.

April 10--Nifong meeting with Meehan--Meehan tells them that their testing has revealed presence of non-lacrosse player DNA, but definitely no lacrosse players.

before April 17, Himan speaks to Nifong--Himan expresses grave concerns about going forward with indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty--Nifong says to go ahead anyway, even though the police had no evidence that Seligmann was even present. Himan goes to superiors to express concerns--they go to Nifong--Nifong overrules them.

April 21: Meehan tells Nifong that one of the profiles matched Mangum's boyfriend, April 21--Nifong tells Meehan to prepare a report.

May 12: final meeting with Meehan. Meehan again explained that DNA from unidentified males--but provides report that Nifong had requested, matches only.

Jean notes defense desire for everything from DNA Security--but never provided anything about conversations with Meehan, and never provided complete results of DNA Security Tests. This shows importance of Finnerty defense team requests, which had been remarkably comprehensive.

June 22: Nifong maintains that all conversations with Meehan non-discoverable work product, and that didn't discuss any evidentiary matters. Nifong did not comply with Stephens order for witness statement from Meehan, nor results of meetings with Meehan.

Sept. hearing: Nifong doesn't respond truthfully to Smith statement.

Dec. 15: meeting in chambers in judge. Nifong at the meeting with Smith doesn't say he knew about the non-lacrosse player male DNA. If innocent, why would Nifong have not volunteered that he already knew about this information?

At time of Dec. 15 hearing, Bar had already sent letter of notice about pre-primary statements.

Nifong gives variety of excuses for why he didn't turn over DNA.

Nifong's conduct did heighten condemnation of accused--and did harm administration of justice. Nifong intentionally misled the media, stoked racial discord, intentionally concealed evidence, and made false representations to two judges.

Harm to the three young men and to NC justice system harmful. Public perception is that NC justice system has no integrity.