Nifong: Afternoon Session

Nifong has opened by repeating his claim that he has always followed open-file discovery.

[Yet yesterday's prosecutor, Marsha Goodenow, pointed out that Nifong's approach in this case constantly violated open discovery files.]

Had no conversation with any officer in the case about how they would present items to the grand jury; he always been the person in his office that people would come to with questions about discovery.

Nifong is currently mispronouncing Reade Seligmann's name.

Nifong just opened a sentence with the following clause, "When I was the district attorney . . ."

The DA is now going to great length in describing the copying process, as if this is something difficult or unusual.

Concedes that he hadn't provided the defendants with the DNA Meehan tests--but believed that he had complied with the request. Didn't realize this was a problem until Dec. 13th.

Hadn't been told that he would be receiving a DNA motion: "My first reaction was a variation of 'oh crap.'" Went back and read over DNA Security report, and information clearly was not there in a "direct fashion."

[Nifong has given a variety of different explanations for this item, but this explanation is a new permutation.]

Says that discovery requests increasingly handled by Linwood Wilson.

June hearing: was confident he had turned over to the defendants a "complete report" from Dr. Meehan. But didn't go back and review earlier discovery data, once he had initially turned over the material to Nifong.

Didn't have specific date to produce underlying data.

Didn't provide memorialization of meetings with Meehan--mention of non-matching male DNA "was not even on my mind."

AG's office basically said he didn't have to turn over such material (memorializing statements). "It wasn't my usual practice, to take extensive notes."

Williamson: Was it your impression that AG's office was saying that facts provided to a prosecutor related to a case could be considered work product, and therefore didn't have to be turned over?
Nifong: No. [But then gives answer that more or less seems to say "yes."]

"Because I was not taking notes, . . . I didn't have it in a position where I could find it later and remember, 'My goodness, I didn't give this.'"

Williamson gets Nifong to admit that he, in fact, wasn't relying on AG's position to not report exculpatory facts conveyed to him by Dr. Meehan.

Williamson: What, in discussion with expert, do you consider to be protected by work product, when the expert is simply providing facts of his tests/findings?

Nifong is becoming a little more flustered in his responses to Williamson.

Williamson: Were you specifically aware of statute that, on its face, requires you to take such notes? (NTO statute)
Nifong: His understanding that he didn't have to do so as a prosecutor.

Williamson: Was it your practice not to take notes, so it wouldn't be discovered?
Nifong: No, sir.
Williamson: Why didn't you take notes?
Nifong: Usually, I only took notes if there was something I needed to remember--assumed that contents of conversation would be in the report. [This is a new excuse.]

As Nifong goes into mind-numbing details about his discovery practices, one of his character witnesses, Judge Anthony Brannon, has fallen asleep.