Brocker: Evidence “clear, cogent and convincing” that Nifong knowingly did not provide info on the unidentified DNA on the rape kit. Mr. Nifong never provided a complete report of the results, ever.

Nifong claims that there was no violation because he provided the underlying data. Brocker says you can’t call 1,800 pages of scientific data a report. “That cannot be what that statute means.” A report should be conclusions from the lab doing the evaluations.

Brocker: Says Nifong has never asserted that he had a privilege, or was not required by statute to provide this. His argument was that there was never anything there. His duty is independent of a written report. “The violations are clear with respect to the discovery statutes.”

Williamson: Question about interpretation of discovery statute. Why are we concerned about the statute when we should be concerned with ethical rules? Isn’t that enough?

Brocker: Agrees. Williamson: Why should we care if he violated both? Brocker: Not sure the statutes “add an aggravation.”

Now Brocker continues. Says the Bar charged Nifong with failing to comply with legally served discovery requests. There were numerous requests and we showed specifically what was requested. We showed clear violations. He was also charged with asking a person other than a client to withhold evidence. This was done when he instructed Meehan on April 21 not to include that in his report.

Williamson: Has concerns about this. This was the subject of Witt’s motion to dismiss. Conflicting testimony on this point to “show a quote agreement.” Says he’s not sure “we have an agreement.” “You may not believe what he (Meehan) says, and you may have good reason not to” but the order said to produce the matching DNA. Says if they were communicated to Nifong orally then he has to turn them over. But that’s different from charging him with “instructing Meehan to produce an incomplete report.” Says there’s plenty of evidence on the former but not so much on the latter.

Brocker: In this hearing Meehan repeatedly said Nifong asked him to produce only the positive matches, which necessarily exclude the other DNA results. Said repeatedly that he didn’t report all of the results, at Nifong’s request. “I think that’s sufficient.”

Brocker continues now. Asks what possible reason or motive would Meehan have to come into the Dec. 15 hearing and testify untruthfully. Says there is none.

Williamson: “The motive would be CYA.”