Posted on 12/15/2006 12:00:48 PM PST by nj_pilot
The head of a private DNA laboratory said under oath today that he and District Attorney Mike Nifong agreed not to report DNA results favorable to Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security of Burlington, said his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear, pubic hair and rectum of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March. Nurses at Duke Hospital collected the samples a few hours after the alleged assault. Meehan said the DNA did not come from Reade Seligmann, David Evans, or Collin Finnerty, who have been charged with rape and sexual assault in the case.
Meehan struggled to say why he didn’t include the favorable evidence in a report dated May 12, almost a month after Seligmann and Finnerty had been indicted. He cited concerns about the privacy of the lacrosse players, his discussions at several meetings with Nifong, and the fact that he didn’t know whose DNA it was.
Under questioning by Jim Cooney, a defense attorney for Seligmann, Meehan admitted that his report violated his laboratory’s standards by not reporting results of all tests.
Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests? Cooney asked.
“I believe so,” Meehan said.
“Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?” Cooney asked.
“I believe so,” Meehan said.
Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney? Cooney asked.
“Yes,” Meehan replied.
At that answer, several people in the packed courtroom clapped. Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III warned the standing-room only crowd to be quiet or leave.
Meehan’s testimony differed from a statement Nifong made at the beginning of today’s hearing.
“The first I had heard of this particular situation was when I was served with this particular motion” on Wednesday, Nifong told the judge. After court, Nifong clarified his remarks to say that he knew about the DNA results.
"And we were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they wanted it and they have every word of it,” Nifong said.
Joseph B. Cheshire V, a lawyer for Evans, said he was troubled by today’s testimony.
“If any of the lacrosse players were excluded, they simply wouldn’t put it in the report,” he said. “It raises some troublesome questions about (Nifong), who has an obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence and turn it over to the defense.”
In a response to reports that the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case gave birth recently, UNC Health care issued a statement at about 1:30 p.m. saying that the woman is at UNC Hospitals for care related to her pregnancy but has not given birth.
Well, look, the poor guy was just trying to get re-elected...
.
.
.
.
< /sarcasm>
But it's not just the lab who will suffer. Think of all the crime victims whose case evidence has been or is being processed by this lab. How many rapists and murderers may get off because of the taint?
Nifong, strippergirl, and the lab director should spend the holidays in a pillory getting pelted with fruitcake and rancid egg nog.
Going to have a bunch of convicted murders looking to see if this lab handeled any of their evidence.
I heard a commentator say that NC has no "speedy trial" reference in its laws....fwiw
That's interesting. This is far beyond a humble antitrust lawyer's field of expertise, but I guess the next question is does the "willfullness" of the statute require some sort of mens rea, or is it merely that he meant to do what he did?
Why is Mike Nifong not behind bars?
I'd leave out the "leftist" part. One likes to think it's only the D's, but DAs in general are people in a position of tremendous power, whose "success" is measured by convictions, and whose re-election is governed by their success.
There's plenty of fear to go around on this one.
The State should have jurisdiction over a local prosecutor. Why are you bypassing the state?
Not only that, but disbarred and broke too. The man is pure scum.
"The prosecution has a duty to divulge exculpatory evidence pertaining to the defendants. I don't know if withholding such evidence is a felony--more like prosecutorial misconduct."
That depends. If the lab report was deliberately altered to omit the exculpatory evidence, then that goes beyond a failure to disclose, and approaches falsifying evidence, which is a felony, I believe. To prove that, they would probably have to find a draft of the report with the exculpatory evidence included.
On the other hand, the discussion between the lab chief and the DA to exclude the evidence from the report may constitute conspiracy - and even if the underlying crime is a misdemeanor, conspiracy is usually a felony.
Probably look like Rev Al or Rev Jackson. Maybe they were paying her way. Hey didn't Jesse do something like this before?
"...if these allegations are proven, he's not exactly going to have a lot of job offers lined up. It's not a slap on the wrist.."
Nope, but then again, he didn't have his name and rep. sullied for being innocent. Seems like he should suffer MORE! :)
The lab director just made every atty., who is trying to question his labs credibility, very, very, very happy.
I was an expert in a Federal civil case where the other sides expert tried something very similar. A PO'd Federal Judge is something terrible to behold.
Up until 10 years ago Nifong was an Assistant DA prosecuting "real" cases. Then he got prostate cancer and upon his recovery was sent to traffic court for a "retirement in place". When Nifong's predecessor as DA, Hardin, was appointed a judge by the gov, Easley, the same gov brought Nifong back from traffic court and made him the DA.
Although he tried to weasel out of it in remarks made after the trial, it appears to me that Nifong was guilty today of a second serious crime: lying under oath to the judge about this evidence. He may have thought that his partner in the first crime would lie under oath, as he did.
NC Legal Question Ping.
After his license to practice law is revoked he could always go to work for Taco Bell, if they'd hire him.
Statements made by the attorneys on either side in court are usually not made under oath - so perjury doesn't apply.
Lock BOTH of them up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.