By Carlos Miller
Montgomery County Police Officer Dina Hoffman lied through her teeth when she arrested George Zaliev for driving under the influence in Maryland a couple of years ago.
Hoffman claimed Zaliev was passed out in the front seat of a running car in a parking lot when she had to shake him awake.
She wrote that in her report. And she later testified that in court. Eleven times to be exact. Or 12 depending on which news reports you believe.
But that was before she was shown a surveillance video that showed Zaliev was actually passed out in the backseat of the car which was not running.
Hoffman was charged with perjury while the charges against Zaliev were dropped.
Last week, a jury found Hoffman not guilty of perjury, proving once again that cops have a license to lie.
The lying bitch now plans to return to her job. Once she gets past the internal investigation, which we all know, should be a breeze.
Hoffman, 26, claimed that the discrepancy of what actually took place and what she claimed took place was a simple result of a “mistake” on her part. Or as her attorney called it, “a faulty memory.”
Wait, who was the one who was drunk here?
She claimed that she did not write the report but that another responding officer did.
But if she was not sure, then why did she testify so surely during Zaliev’s trial?
It may have been because Zaliev displayed contempt-of-cop when he was awakened from his drunken slumber.
Prosecutors at Hoffman’s trial said the female officer had lied because Zaliev made denigrating comments about women to Hoffman and that Hoffman remembered many other details that were not in the other officer’s report.
“She lied under oath to make an innocent man look guilty,” said Howard County Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Furlong in his closing arguments Thursday. Zaliev should never have been charged with DUI because Hoffman found him in the backseat of the car, Furlong said.
Despite the blatant video, the jury was still not convinced she had lied under oath.
Judge Michael Mason’s Circuit Court jury of 12 members deliberated part of Thursday and the full day Friday. Toward the end of the hearing, the jury asked the judge about more definitions on “beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The judge replied the jury had been given all resources available in order to reach a verdict. Just before 6:30, the jury declared “not guilty.”
The problem with this sympathetic jury is that they obviously did not take into account how close Hoffman came to screwing up Zaliev’s life. And they are not taking into consideration how many other lives she could have screwed up through her “faulty memory.”
According to WSUA9, Hoffman believes she has been treated unfairly in the media.
She added that the hardest part of the trial was reading the media stories on her case and not being able to tell her side of the story.
But she did tell her side of the story. Eleven times under oath during Zaliev’s trial. Or 12 depending on which news reports you believe.
The problem was, her side of the story was a bald-face lie.
Popularity: 4% [?]
34 responses so far ↓
1 Rob // Jun 16, 2010 at 12:00 AM
“The problem with this sympathetic jury is that they obviously did not take into account how close Hoffman came to screwing up Zaliev’s life.”
Shame on you, Carlos. The seriousness of the crime has NO bearing on wether or not someone is guilty.
Of course… she was totally guilty. The jury fucked up.
2 Jay // Jun 16, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Sure I don’t know the deets, but juries are morons. The good thing is that she still might lose her job. Any half-ass defense attorney will figure a way to introduce this during a trial to taint any shred of evidence or testimony she provides.
But you’re right — what’s wrong for me and you rarely matters if you’re wearing Blue.
Pathetic.
3 the bulldog // Jun 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM
am i allowed to call her a cunt on here?
4 Rob // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:28 AM
Wow! That’s about all I can think to say. She lied, the lie was exposed and the charges against Zaliev were dropped. So, to me that means the court acknowledged the lie took place.
How the Hell can you drop charges on a suspect due to a lie, but then say the cop didn’t lie?!? WTF?
Rob recently posted..SDKA Go Kart Race At Qualcomm Stadium June 13, 2010
5 JThomas // Jun 16, 2010 at 2:05 AM
This was the only video I could find that would play:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/082109_police_officer_charged_with_perjury_in_dui_case
6 Kol. Klink // Jun 16, 2010 at 4:03 AM
Cops aren’t the only problem. Bootlickers – the jury of your “peers”- is also the problem.
Granny, a member of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, loves cops harassing naughty boys.
Cops didn’t create a nanny state without granny voting.
7 Carlos Miller // Jun 16, 2010 at 7:25 AM
Thanks JT!
8 ClintJCL // Jun 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Hear that cops? Arrest people for whatever made up reasons you want. 99% of the time nothing will come of it. But if something does, just claim it’s a mistake and everything will be okay.
Can we say police state?
Dina Hoffman. What a bitch!! What a lying pig!!
9 Supernintendo Chalmers // Jun 16, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Why did the jury want definitions from the judge??
What a stupid fucking jury.
10 Nuitnoel // Jun 16, 2010 at 10:12 AM
Montgomery County – yes, it’s a disaster. Those jurors were probably afraid of the police department’s retaliation. I’m sure the judge emphasized many issues to totally confuse the vulnerable jury.
I’ve had first hand experience in Montgomery county. My attorney advised me of the law enforcement’s lying and the judge/jury falling for it. He convinced me (in all fairness to him) that the judge would believe law enforcement before me.
Just recently, the state’s attorney in Montgomery County sent me an email telling me that even though they knew the charges against me were not true, they cited Agent Martinez (yes same guy whose name has been posted here) made mistakes and “even experienced law enforcement officers make mistakes”…only Martinez had the information for two months and still made false statements against me. You would think that an experienced law enforcement officer would review his investigation, review the evidence and review his complaint before filing.
“Mistakes” – what a farce. More like incompetence.
11 mepsipax // Jun 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM
This is total bullshit. People are complete fucking idiots. If you aren’t willing to stand up for your rights….
12 Yizmo Gizmo // Jun 16, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Exhibit A for those who do not realize to what extent DUI/MADD has become an
anti-drinking crusade with all sorts of
constitutional transgressions.
13 oscar finch // Jun 16, 2010 at 10:59 AM
This made my day
14 Al // Jun 16, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Regardless of the jury’s decision on the cop’s incopetence (see what I did there?), that dude is lucky as hell for that surveillance camera.
15 Melissa // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Same thing is happening with an Officer in Frederick, MD. She testified she saw a man get a bag with a white substance out of his trunk. She was not even there.
9 drug cases were dropped because of it. We will see what happens to her.
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=106036
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=106168
16 oscar finch // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM
This is a comment to the article that will be appearing on this website in the near future.
It will probably be called Seattle cop punches female for jaywalking.
She got what she deserved.
17 oscar finch // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM
This is a reply to an article I’m sure will be appearing on this website soon.
The article will probably be called “seattle cop punches girl for jaywalking”. The article probably won’t mention that she was interfering with the officer who was trying to arrest somebody else. It will most likely downplay her assault on the officer because she is only a female and if a cop can’t take a push from a little girl he shouldn’t be a cop. The article won’t mention that even though more than one person appears to be filming the cop never tried to stop them for doing so.
Anyways here is my comment. She deserved to get punched and I’m glad its on tape so she can’t claim she was punched for no reason.
18 Ronald Krinock // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Though their conduct deserves strong terms such as the “female-dog” one used above–nevertheless–the self-righteousness of the Establishment seems–in MY opinion–to FORCE us to be “squeaky” clean…even when trying to EXPOSE such fascism/authoritarianism. That said, the public has a RIGHT to know what authorities are doing–so keep doing that.
19 ClintJCL // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Misplaced outrage is funny — you’re posting a defense to somethign that hasn’t even been posted here yet? Kind of makes you look like a kook.
But yeah, I saw that video, and she did kind of deserve it.
ClintJCL recently posted..links for 2010-06-15
20 Rance // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM
And so the troll returns. Pity. I really enjoyed a week without Oscar spreading his idiocy around.
21 oscar finch // Jun 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Since it seems to be proper internet etiquette to apologize for double posting please let me say I’m sorry, it was an accident.
22 Rusty Carr // Jun 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Don’t feed’m Rance, don’t feed’m.
23 Terry // Jun 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM
With jury verdicts like this, it would appear we’re getting exactly the government we deserve….
24 Rich // Jun 16, 2010 at 5:48 PM
well Jury Nullification in my book is a good thing. Maybe not in this case but a good thing. The question I would like to ask, is not that she could not recall what happened a year ago and lied. What I would like to ask is why if you obviously saw him in the back seat NOT breaking any law, how is it you chose to arrest harass and attempt to destroy his life in the first place.
WHY has she not been fired. Why has the chief not been fired for not firing this women.
25 Fred Sands // Jun 16, 2010 at 7:26 PM
I hope to hell that in the future, every time she testifies in a case the defense is allowed to present this as evidence that she simply cannot be trusted.
Regardless of whether she lied or she just has a bad memory doesn’t matter. She is demonstratively an unreliable witness and this should be admissible.
That would severely limit her usefulness as a police officer.
26 Fred Sands // Jun 16, 2010 at 7:32 PM
I’d also have to add that the defense council blew it. He had an absolutely bulletproof perjury trap and completely screwed it up.
He should have relentlessly established her recollection of detail, got her off the stand, introduced the video, then immediately asked the court to dismiss and order the AG to begin a perjury investigation. He should _never_ have given her the opportunity to say “Oops. My apologizes.” There was simply no need for it. The video said everything that was needed.
Total screw up on his part.
27 the bulldog // Jun 17, 2010 at 12:02 AM
tell them on the tipline!
https://www.tipsubmit.com/WebTips.aspx?AgencyID=758
28 Lampie The Clown // Jun 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Isn’t a tape to be used as evidence supposed to be listed as such at the discovery phase? How did the DA miss it? And if he saw it, why didn’t he drop the case then? Perry Mason moments only happen on TV because of the discovery phase, or so I thought.
29 Fred Sands // Jun 17, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Generally speaking (never practiced in Maryland), the DA needs to list and provide all it’s evidence to the defense. The defense, however, can hold back evidence from the prosecution until it’s presented in court.
My assumption in this case is that defense council obtained the tape on their own and pulled a “Perry Mason” surprise during the trial. So the DA may not have seen it before the trial.
30 HippieG // Jun 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM
“How the Hell can you drop charges on a suspect due to a lie, but then say the cop didn’t lie?!? WTF?”
Two different court cases. The first court case was against Zaliev. In that case the defense brought up evidence that refuted the official version. Note: The video evidence was not a police dash cam. Q? Where was the dash cam evidence?
The second case was against the offending officer, Hoffman, and tried in a different court; probably different Judge, defintely different jury. The claim that the arresting officer did not write the report was probably presented as standard procedure. Embellishing the report was also probably presented as standard procedure. Since it is standard procedure to let someone other than the arresting officer write and embellish arrest reports, and given the amount of time between the arrest and the actual trial (10 months, maybe?) , it was presented to the jury that no perjury was committed.
TaDA!
31 Nuitnoel // Jun 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
As I understand, it was the prosecutor who had the tape, not the defense. This was the trial for the perjury. In this case, the police officer was on trial so her attorney didn’t have the tape.
32 Lampie The Clown // Jun 17, 2010 at 5:27 PM
The things they do to make it “fair”.
The one that always got me was , anything you say can and will be used against you. Say something incriminating, and the cop will repeat it for the DA, while on the stand. Anything you told him that helps your case? He can’t repeat it, because it’s hearsay!
The things we choose to care about…
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.
33 Mark // Jun 19, 2010 at 7:37 PM
She commited perjury TWICE! How bad could her memory be? When she arrested him did she forget she had just found him in the back seat? Her false report was merely the cover-up for a false arrest.
34 EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy // Jun 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM
“Where was the dash cam evidence?”
Strange but true: any recording device installed in or on police equipment of handled by a police officer instantly develops a bad intermittent bug that causes it to fail from time to time.
It’s just a coincidence that those times correspond to instances in which there are creditable accusations of official misconduct.
Leave a Comment