Accused of withholding a DNA report favorable to the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case, Durham, NC, District Attorney Mike Nifong reached for an argument familiar to defense attorneys: Even if he didn't produce a report identifying exculpatory DNA results, he did produce documents containing those results ' among over a 1,000 pages of related documents produced before trial.
Defendants' Pretrial Access to Documents in White-Collar Prosecutions
Accused of withholding a DNA report favorable to the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case, Durham, NC, District Attorney Mike Nifong reached for an argument familiar to defense attorneys: Even if he didn't produce a report identifying exculpatory DNA results, he did produce documents containing those results ' among over a 1,000 pages of related documents produced before trial. Of course, the North Carolina Bar found that Nifong did more than simply bury favorable evidence in a document production. Assume, however, that he had produced exculpatory DNA results, and even a report explaining them, in thousands of pages of documents, but defense counsel didn't find them. Did he satisfy his disclosure obligations?
By
Jodi Misher Peikin And James R. StovallThis premium content is locked for Business Crimes Bulletin subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN Business Crimes Bulletin
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
