Uh, its not up to you Mr. Nifong to suggest what, if any, is the significance of the evidence.
That is absolutely correct, as Nifong should (but evidently does not) know. In United States v. Smith, 77 F.3d 511, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the D.C. Circuit noted that in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court "stress[ed] that a reviewing court must focus on the fairness of the trial the defendant actually received rather than on whether a different result would have occurred had the undisclosed evidence been revealed." As explained by the Court in Kyles, 514 U.S. at 439-40:
"This means, naturally, that a prosecutor anxious about tacking too close to the wind will disclose a favorable piece of evidence. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976) ('The prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.') This is as it should be. Such disclosure will serve to justify trust in the prosecutor as 'the representative . . . of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). And it will tend to preserve the criminal trial, as distinct from the prosecutor's private deliberations, as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations."
In other words, it is for the jury, not the prosecutor, to decide whether favorable Brady information is credible; otherwise "prosecutors might, on a claim that they thought it unreliable, refuse to produce any matter whatever helpful to the defense, thus setting Brady at nought." Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 1985).
This really should never have been a question. The jury is the trier of facts in the case given to them by the court. But for DAs playing fast and loose, this would never have come up. They forget who they work for, and that the public trust demands they seek justice, not just notches on their headboards.