No. That's called willful blindness, which in legal terms is just as culpable.
I don't remember the exact questions Nifong was asked, but suppose, for example, that Meehan had told Nifong the results over the phone but not shown them to him in writing, and someone in court asked him "Yes or no--did you see any other DNA evidence you haven't discussed?" At that point, Mr. Nifong would not have seen any other DNA evidence. He would be aware of it, but that isn't the question that was asked.
While I don't like Clintonesque parsing, I think a portion of the responsibility for avoiding it rest upon the people who ask questions. A question like "Were you aware of any other DNA evidence", for example, would force someone to reveal such evidence whether he saw it, heard of it, read about it (without seeing it himself), or became aware of it via some other means (not sure how he could smell it, taste it, or touch it, but maybe...)
Of course, if Nifong was asked if he was aware of such evidence, his denial would be an absolute lie no matter what sort of Clintonesque parsing he tried.