Yeah, I saw it too. Any thoughts on how Stephens might view Nifong's latest cock-up? Normally, I'd think a judge would not be pleased.
I don't think you're allowed to lie to the court (judge) with impunity. Nifong has done that twice: 1) he told the first judge ordering team DNAing "will immediately rule out innocent persons". Except that it didn't. 2) he lied to Stephens about turning over everything and about his lack of knowledge about the cell phone.
If Stephens doesn't grant the motions this time, the defense needs to go to federal district court.
Stephens probably knew Nifong would hold back, but he just wants to make the defense work for it and/or felt that they should at least review the discovery before asking him to grant such a motion. Well, the defense has reviewed the discovery, and it is clearly wanting. If Stephens denies the motion again, he jeopardizes the entire case and runs the risk of having the decision overturned under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment right away. A state cannot make a law and then selectively apply it, and that's what Nifong is doing in this case. The Open Discovery law is not being fully applied if Stephens denies the Motion. The open question is whether or not Stephens will allow it to go on. I think he'll cover his own butt and grant the Motion.