Replies

Mangum's probation order requires Mangum to submit to drug-testing when requested by the police or the court. The results of that test could conceivably be held away from the Duke case for that reason. Whether it was positive or negative, Nifong would definitely want to keep it back. Only if it was positive for a date-rape drug would he want to use it.

You are probably right about the source of the toxicology examination.

However, the fact that the examination was done under the probation order should not relieve Nifong of his ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence.

I chalk this up as one more incident of ethical misconduct by Nifong.

The tox report isn't directly exculpatory, no matter what the results are, but it might impeach other statements Mangum has made with regard to her condition that night, what she did before going to the lax appointment, etc.. I agree it's completely relevant and should be turned over. My only point was that, from a legal standpoint, if the tox report is attached to another case, such as a possible probation violation, there is a technical argument that it's not discoverable in the Duke case because it isn't evidence collected by the cops or the DA for that case. It appears that may have been the argument that was made and, ever how it came about, Nifong lost on that point. What would be significant about it is if a judge ruled on that point, which may have happened and it just wasn't announced. The defense had raised the issue of a tox report and requested it in open court. Nifong was coy in his answer. The defense obviously pursued that point and Nifong either caved, which doesn't seem likely since he's clearly as stubborn as a rock, or the court directed him to turn it over, regardless of whether or not Nifong felt it was evidence gathered in another case. If so, that says something positive about the judge, and we haven't seen much of anything positive come from the judges so far.