Investigator Benjamin Himan testified in Nifong's trial on ethics violations that the police and the prosecutor were aware of a host of problems in the case Nifong was pursuing against members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Chief among the problems, the investigator testified, was that they couldn't prove Reade Seligmann was even at the party when an escort service dancer said she was raped by him.

"We didn't have any DNA. We didn't have him at the party," Himan testified. "It was a big concern to me to go for an indictment and not even know where he was, if he was even there. ... I didn't want to indict somebody that shouldn't have been indicted."

The testimony came as the first day of Nifong's trial before a disciplinary committee of the State Bar came to a close.

It was a dramatic moment in a remarkable day for the North Carolina justice system, in which an elected district attorney had to defend his law license while a national television audience looked on.

The case is scheduled begin again at 9 a.m. Tuesday.

In the first day, lawyers painted very different pictures of the Durham prosecutor and his motivations as he pursued the rape charges.

Prosecutors for the bar, which licenses and regulates lawyers, called Himan and one of the lacrosse players' lawyer.

The lawyer described how Nifong had condemned the players to the public while refusing to discuss the case with lawyers.

Himan testified the case against the lacrosse players had serious problems and Nifong knew from the start that it was likely not winnable. Their only witness -- the accuser -- was unreliable and had given conflicting stories.

Today's testimony is crucial to the Bar's efforts to prove its accusations, that Nifong broke ethics rules through his early public statements and purposely withheld evidence from three Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of sexual assault.

One of the lawyers representing the State Bar said in her opening statement that Nifong seized on politically explosive allegations to go the lacrosse players regardless of the evidence.

"Mr. Nifong intentionally sought out the world's attention," State Bar prosecutor Katherine Jean said.

"When the world was focused squarely on North Carolina and its justice system, Mr. Nifong repeatedly and intentionally misled the media and therefore the public about a very serious case, caused racial unrest in Durham, intentionally concealed evidence to which he now admits the defendants were entitled to but which was extremely harmful to his theory of the case and made false representations to two judges in an effort to keep the defendant from discovering it."

One of Nifong's attorneys said the prosecutor regrets some of his statements to reporters and does not dispute that the lacrosse players are innocent.

But Nifong committed no intentional ethics violations, he said.

"I contend to you there was nothing political about Mike Nifong," said the lawyer, David Freedman. "I contend to you when you hear all the evidence at no time did Mr. Nifong commit any intentional violations."

The hearing, which is expected to take five days, may serve as a de facto Duke lacrosse trial.

Nifong, who had championed the case against the three former players -- Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Seligmann -- recused himself in the wake of ethics charges from the State Bar.

The state attorney general dismissed the case in April, calling the men victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."

The State Bar's first witness was Wade Smith, a legendary North Carolina defense lawyer who was one of Finnerty's attorneys. Smith discussed the atmosphere at an early hearing in which protestors shouted threats.

Smith testified that Nifong's public statements had helped create the chaotic scene.

"I think that the statements he made in effect took this case out of the court system and deposited it in the hands of the public," Smith said.

Freedman acknowledged Nifong initially had pursued a weak and flawed case.

Though critics saw Nifong as a prosecutor unwilling to look at the facts, Nifong had reasons to believe a crime occurred and was standing up for a case he knew he could not win, Freedman said.

Freedman said when police went to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., they found no one home, which was suspicious to them, given the woman's tale of a rowdy party. Neighbors told of hearing racial slurs, which to police helped corroborate the woman's account.

The most serious accusation against Nifong is that he tried to conceal results from DNA testing that found genetic material from unknown men on the body and underwear of the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum. The same tests scientifically excluded all members of the lacrosse team as contributors of the DNA.

Jean's questions for Smith, a Finnerty attorney, went over meetings, comments and statements that will be crucial for Bar prosecutors to prove that Nifong intentionally withheld the evidence.

Smith faced questions from both sides today. He finished his testimony about 2:35 p.m.

Himan took the stand next.

The detective described the three captains who lived at the house as cooperative when investigators searched the home.

The players spent seven hours with police, gave statements and fully cooperated, Himan said. They insisted upon their innocence.

Himan's account was a much different story from the one Nifong told reporters when he decried a wall of silence and a refusal to cooperate.

Himan also explained early photographic arrays police showed Mangum in an effort to have her identify the men she said assaulted her. In those early arrays, in which Mangum could not pick out anyone, despite having seen photographs of Seligmann and Evans.

Also in those early lineups, the police took great efforts to follow the police regulations on presenting photographic arrays, Himan said.

Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of false identifications.

Later, Nifong would order the investigators to show Mangum a picture of everyone investigators believed were at the party. She was told she was looking at a picture of people who were at the party. Himan said the investigators planned to use the procedure to narrow the list of people they needed to interview about the case.

Freedman said in his opening statement Nifong knew that procedure might not hold up in court, which is why he had the detectives videotape it.

The role of judge and jury belongs to three members of the Disciplinary Hearing Commission, which is composed of 12 lawyers appointed by the Bar and eight non-lawyers appointed by the governor and General Assembly. The three-member panel is conducting the trial, and it will find the facts, apply the law and decide disciplinary sanctions, if any.

The hearing will be in two parts. The first is to determine whether the charges have merit. If the panel decides they do, a second phase determines the punishment, the most severe of which would be disbarment. The disciplinary panel does not have the power to impose criminal penalties or remove Nifong from office.

Williamson said when Nifong's trial concludes, the panel will deliberate and announce the outcome immediately.