[Locomotive Breath]

Well, I'm thinking that Nifong's office actually bothered to comply with the discovery law and turned over to the defense the account of the interview. As usual, this information has come out in a defense motion citing materials obtained from discovery.

The reason this may not be a smoke screen, as someone else mentioned upthread, is in court when RS's alibi was mentioned Nifong made a smirking response about the defense not know "his" timeline. I think this has been planned since RS alibi information was made public.

[Howlin]

Nifong made a smirking response about the defense not know "his" timeline.

But he said he hasn't talked to her.

[r9etb]

The reason this may not be a smoke screen, as someone else mentioned upthread, is in court when RS's alibi was mentioned Nifong made a smirking response about the defense not know "his" timeline. I think this has been planned since RS alibi information was made public.

I think Nifong's got a legal duty to reveal "his" timeline, doesn't he?

[JLS]

Certainly it may be an attempt to save a case against Seligmann, but it conflicts with all the other evidence. And I doubt Nifong voluntarily complied with discovery law.

[lapsus calami]

 

when RS's alibi was mentioned Nifong made a smirking response about the defense not know "his" timeline.

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

From Webster's Legal Dictionary:

 

trial by ambush, informal  a disparaging term for trial procedures or strategies that involve withholding relevant information from the other side and then presenting it under circumstances in which the other side does not have a reasonable opportunity to investigate and rebut it. Modern procedural rules, especially those providing for DISCOVERY, seek to minimize opportunities for trial by ambush. Also called trial by surprise.

 

 

 

Fitting, especially in regards to the withholding exculpatory DNA evidence debacle.