Comments on: Maryland cop caught on surveillance camera lying about DUI case acquitted

By: EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:54:25 +0000

“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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 23:37:25 +0000

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.

By: Lampie The Clown

Lampie The Clown — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:27:49 +0000

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.

By: Nuitnoel

Nuitnoel — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:25:34 +0000

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.

By: HippieG

HippieG — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:23:30 +0000

“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!

By: Fred Sands

Fred Sands — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:53:49 +0000

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.

By: Lampie The Clown

Lampie The Clown — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:21:18 +0000

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.

By: the bulldog

the bulldog — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:02:50 +0000

tell them on the tipline!

https://www.tipsubmit.com/WebTips.aspx?AgencyID=758

By: Fred Sands

Fred Sands — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:32:15 +0000

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.