Talking about the May 12 meeting with Meehan.

Brocker refers to Nifong’s deposition, when that was discussed. Brocker, in the deposition, asked him if Nifong and Meehan discussed any of the missing DNA. Nifong told him in the deposition that Meehan didn’t go through the deposition with him, that they had no discussion about what was in the report or not in the report. Brocker: That seems contradictory to your testimony today. Nifong: It seems to be. Brocker: How is that? Nifong: They were both true at the time they were given.

Brocker: You said you didn’t know the unidentified DNA was in the report because you never read the report between May 12 and when it was discovered. But on three occasions you were served with discovery requests and conversations you’d had with Meehan. Nifong: Doesn’t recall specifically.

Looking at a discovery request from Seligmann’s attorney on April 18 asking for test results including but not limited to DNA analysis and any exculpatory-type information. Brocker: And you received this a few days before your April 21 meeting with Meehan. Nifong: Again with the conflated meeting excuse and the resulting confusion.

Williamson: Did you meet with Meehan before the indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty? Nifong: I don’t know. Can’t specifically recall. [This reminds me of Father Guido Sarducci’s bit on the use of the “I-don’t-recall clause” and how useful it can be.]

By April 19 you knew there was DNA that didn’t match the players, Brocker asks. Nifong: Yes, and they were certainly entitled to it.

April 28, 2006, another request asking for materials under Rule 3.8 of NC State Bar. Certainly by that point you knew about the other DNA? Nifong: There’s no question.

Brocker: You were receiving these requests contemporaneously as you were meeting with Meehan about these very issues? Nifong: That’s true, but….and goes into some rationalization I can’t begin to follow.

When you provided discovery on May 18 you knew about the other DNA. Nifong: Yes. Brocker: And this was the hearing where you said you had given them everything, so this was a false statement. Nifong: Wasn’t thinking about it, didn’t know I hadn’t given it, not an intentional misrepresentation.

Brocker: Regardless of intent, it was a false misrepresentation of material fact. Nifong: Yes.