Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has given several reasons, sometimes in a single document, for why he didn't turn over DNA results favorable to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans. Nifong first learned of the results April 10 and produced the relevant documents Oct. 27, following a court order. State law requires prosecutors to give defendants "a report of the results of any examinations or tests conducted by the expert."

DIDN'T KNOW RESULTS: "The first I heard of this particular situation was when I was served with these reports -- this motion -- on Wednesday of this week." -- court transcript, 12/15/06

CONCERN FOR PLAYERS' PRIVACY: "We were trying to, just as Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud, but at the same time his report made it clear that all of the information was available if they wanted it, and they have every word of it." -- Nifong to reporters after court hearing of 12/15/06

OVERSIGHT: In a New York Times story, Nifong acknowledged that he should have turned that favorable evidence over to the defense. And he said withholding that information was an oversight -- he thought he had already turned it over. "Given the volume of evidence in the case, he said he simply did not realize he had failed to turn over the DNA results in question." -- NYT, 12/24/06

DNA RESULTS WEREN'T USEFUL: "I looked at them as non-inculpatory with respect to the members of the lacrosse team rather than as specifically exculpatory [i.e. they neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else]." -- letter to State Bar, 12/28/06

THE SUMMARY REPORT WAS ENOUGH: "I told [Meehan] that a summary report listing the items tested, the tests performed and the results of the tests -- in other words, a report similar to the SBI standard report -- would suffice." -- letter to State Bar, 12/28/06

DISTRACTIONS OF A HOTLY CONTESTED CAMPAIGN: "Because I had never previously been involved in a political campaign, and because I was facing an unusually contentious challenge from an unprecedented number of challengers, I was not always able to give the case my full attention. This ... may have contributed to my not initially paying enough attention to whether the DNA Security report contained everything it arguably should have." -- letter to State Bar, 12/28/06

DELEGATED IT TO STAFF: His support staff took care of copying material to give to defendants. "These people were neither concentrating on the actual contents of the documents being copied nor familiar enough with the facts of the case to have known whether anything was missing." -- letter to State Bar, 12/28/06

NEVER WENT BACK TO REVIEW EVIDENCE: "Rarely if ever, would any attempt be made to systematically review all the evidence previously provided; that did not happen in this case." -- letter to State Bar, 12/28/06

OTHER SIDE SHOULD HAVE ASKED: "My failure to provide the data underlying the test results initially was based on the fact that the defendants had not yet asked for it." -- letter to State Bar, 1/16/07

STILL PRIOR TO TRIAL: "If a defendant is given the information in time to effectively use it at trial, then he has not been denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's failure [or tardiness] to disclose it." -- brief to State Bar, 3/16/07

NOT REQUIRED TO WRITE DOWN WHAT MEEHAN TOLD HIM: Nifong said the judge did not order him to make a written record of his conversations with Meehan. And state law doesn't require him to make notes of such a meeting. -- brief to State Bar, 3/16/07

I GAVE IT TO THEM: "Nifong provided the Duke defendants with Dr. Meehan's report and all of the underlying data received from Dr. Meehan as soon as he was able to do so." -- brief to State Bar, 3/16/07