It just wouldn't surprise me were this to be played out this way.
I don't know what else he could possibly argue, but that's not going to pass with the Bar. He can argue it, but "shielding" DNA results based upon "media distraction" and then claiming he has turned over all evidence helpfull to the defense is a clear violation. And then he still backs himself into the corner when he is asked why he continued the case and brought charges when the DNA totally contradicted the claims of the accuser.
He'll probably blame it on his first wife. She worked to put him through law school. Once finished, he decided to move on.
In past cases, police officers have screwed something up, and upon being sued or charged criminally, have tried to assert that they didn't know something relevant to the case. The courts are not sympathetic to that view and the words "You knew or should have known" is the best sympathy the police will get. The same type of reasoning is going to be applied to Nifong if he tries to say that his training was not adequate. The courts will tell him "You knew or should have known" about the legal constraints in your own state about making public prejudicial remarks pre-trial. The courts have a philosophy that the "Government" knows all, and Mike Nifong, whether or not he likes it, is part of the "Government."