Teacher Julie Amero Gets a New Trial

LazloHollyfeld writes "A New London Superior court judge this morning granted a defense request seeking a new trial for Julie Amero, the former Norwich middle school substitute teacher convicted of exposing her middle school students to Internet porn. Acting on a motion by Amero's attorney, William Dow III, Judge Hillary Strackbein placed the case back on a trial list. Amero had faced 40 years on the conviction of four counts of risk of injury to a minor. State prosecutor David Smith confirmed that further forensic examination at the state crime lab of Amero's classroom computer revealed "some erroneous information was presented during the trial. Amero and her defense team claimed she was the victim of pop-up ads — something that was out of her control. Judge Strackbein said because of the possibility of inaccurate facts, Amero was "entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice." After the brief court appearance, a smiling Amero stood next to her attorney. "I feel very comfortable with the decision," Amero said. Dow commended the state for investigating the case further. A new court date has yet to be scheduled. Amero has reentered a not guilty plea."

Legal Defence

[uolamer (957159)]

The Pop-up add made me do it!

Re:Legal Defence

[Major Blud (789630)]

I think this guy had to be the prosecutions' "computer expert".... http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/27/ 135221&tid=133 [slashdot.org]

Re:Legal Defence

[HermMunster (972336)]

Any attempt at prosecution in this matter is nothing but a total injustice. I fix computers every day. I remove malware. It is incredibly easy to get infected under Windows. Most of this is due to negligence on the part of Microsoft. It is exacerbated by the ignorance of the average user. Virtually any site can be dangerous. Some of this software is incredibly difficult to get rid of while retaining the integrity of the prior install. A substitute school teacher would have no idea how she got infected nor how to remove it once it was infected.

We should not be prosecuting this lady. We should be prosecuting the advertisers and adware distributors. Listen if it wasn't for the advertisers we'd have no malware products. We should also be suing Microsoft for their negligence in their failure to protect the children and the school for not ensuring proper protection to begin with.

Schools should be mandated to use Linux with strict account control. Without a doubt the issues are with Windows, the advertisers, with malware creators, and the school IT people. Someone using a computer for whatever reason should not be held liable because they unwittingly find their way to a malicious site. If they installed Linux on those boxes the accounts would be so compartmentalized there's be little to no adware and no infections that were more difficult to clean than backing up the account data and wiping the account.

The whole idea of holding this poor lady responsible for everyone else's fuck ups is just ludicrous. I know they are saying she did this on purpose and that she was hoping she'd create havoc and harm these children's development and hoped to get fired for doing so. If this hadn't been overturned on this appeal it certainly would have been overturned higher up. This poor woman is being abused by the powers that be and is being used as a scapegoat. This is just sad.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

>Trouble is though, do you really want some pron-at-work type person teaching your child? After all, they're supposed to be a trusted role model and good influence for our youth.

Sure, if they're a good teacher and aren't showing it to students. Does it really matter what a teacher does on their own time as long as it doesn't come out during the time they spend teaching? Suggesting anything else is trying to force your morals and values on others under the guide of "saving the children", even though it

Re:Legal Defence

[Saanvik (155780)]

Um, no, there is no evidence of shady behavior. There's evidence that the computer in question displayed adult images during the time in question, but there are many reasons, such as the pop-up ads blamed by the defense, that such images could have been displayed.

Re:Legal Defence

[billcopc (196330)]

In fact there is evidence of negligence by the school's IT staff, since they never renewed their license for virus and spyware protection. Any damn kid could have surfed any of the thousands of porn domains that spring up every day, and they probably did, which is what set the PC up for popups in the first place. Couple that with poor (read: nonexistent) local security settings and the sysadmin is every bit as guilty as this prof, which is to say: not very guilty at all.

The other thing is: ok so a bunch of teens saw some boobs on a computer screen... so what ? They're probably already checking that stuff out at home when mom & dad aren't watching. It won't make them into lesser beings. On the other hand, dragging this bening issue into court and legally abusing a teacher is one hell of a bad example to set for your kids. That's right son, when the going gets tough, shrug responsibility and sue someone!

Re:

[NoOneInParticular (221808)]

After all, they're supposed to be a trusted role model and good influence for our youth.

Not sure when this became fact, but in my day, a teacher was someone that (a) would teach, and (b) would not do unnecessary harm. I probably missed the memo where indoctrinating them to a particular way of life (the parent's responsibility) were offloaded to the teacher.

Re:Legal Defence

[Wellington Grey (942717)]

Not sure when this became fact, but in my day, a teacher was someone that (a) would teach, and (b) would not do unnecessary harm. I probably missed the memo where indoctrinating them to a particular way of life (the parent's responsibility) were offloaded to the teacher.

No kidding. I'm a teacher and let me tell you, the worst role models are the people intentionally trying to be a role model.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:Legal Defence

[aeschenkarnos (517917)]

The "think of the CHILLDREENN!!!" idiots never realize this, probably because they are among them, but children need some negative role models. Children need to encounter the occasional adult who is a jerk, an asshole, selfish, or just plain stupid. Three reasons: (1) It shows, like nothing else, that it is a possibility that adults you encounter in your own adult life are going to be in the above category; (2) It gives you practice in thinking around them, circumventing them, going under their radar and over their heads, which will be immensely useful in adult life; (3) Much of a person's character is defined by what they are determined to not be. The assertion "I will not be like that guy" is a good, character-building assertion to make.

Fortunately, modern high schools provide such examples in vast numbers.

Re:Legal Defence

[ryanov (193048)]

Since it appears as if you've never had teenagers, you probably don't know what the hell you're talking about.

My parents smacked me once in awhile -- probably not their proudest moment -- but it sure kept me from doing shit. I resented them at the time, but not for that -- for not being allowed to do whatever it is I wanted to do (which was probably some asshole thing I shouldn't have been doing anyway).

Maybe you can do it without corporal punishment, and that's fine... but I know that every time I ride the train and some little shit is running up and down the aisles, it occurs to me that kids don't seem to have to behave the way they used to. SOMETHING is obviously different.

Re:Legal Defence

[greenechidna (824493)]

I was never hit by my parents (as far as I recall) and rarely sent to my room. I was not a paragon of virtue, far from it, but when I did something wrong my parents would tell me off. My Mother sometimes lost it and shouted at us but my Father's tactic was usually to tell us that he felt let down and to explain that he expected better from us. It sounds pretty weak written down like this but it certainly didn't seem so at the time. I felt terrible when I knew that my Father disapproved of my actions. This was effective because his moral authority stemmed from the fact that he was asking us to uphold standards that he himself adhered to. Beating someone for fighting (for example) rather undermines your moral authority. I think that each parent has to work things out for themselves (I have three kids) and I can understand why parents occasionally smack their children (try reasoning with a two year old that tries to throw a baby out of the pram, for example). However, I have to agree with the grandparent here that if you rely on corporal punishment then the situation can escalate out of control.

Expert witness

[DimGeo (694000)]

Call in an expert witness to testify the computer was infected with malware which automatically displayed porn ads at irregular intervals. Nothing a non-expert like her could do about it. The whole case was an accident in my opinion.

Re:Legal Defence

[beadfulthings (975812)]

Actually there may or may not be evidence of shady behavior. What is clear is that the school's protective measures, intended to block the porn and assorted other undesirable popups, were not functioning during the interval in question. It was also brought up in the original trial that she contacted the school authorities in an attempt to get some technical support with the problem. If she'd been thinking more astutely, she might have simply shut the computer down or might even have locked it away from the students. But she did what she was supposed to do in terms of alerting the school to the problem and requesting help with it. If you regard it in another light, she got a 40 year sentence due to somebody else's poor software and tech support.

Re:Legal Defence

[mark-t (151149)]

All really nice except that she was explicitly given orders to *NOT* shut the computer off. Indeed, had she never been instructed to avoid shutting down the computer she probably would have done just that (or at least shut off the monitor, although from what I've read before she evidently did not know that the monitor power switch was separate from the actual computer power switch when asked why she didn't simply shut the monitor off). One can argue about whether or not such a computer illiterate teacher should be in an elementary school classroom in the 21st century all they want, but it's still not something a person should go to jail for. Of course, not that it matters... even though she's innocent of any real wrongdoing, this incident has probably cemented her teaching career closed forever.

Re:Legal Defence

[MMC Monster (602931)]

Not knowing that the monitor is a separate switch is not entirely unreasonable. I would not have any idea how to turn the monitor off a recent iMac without shutting the system down, and I've been exposed to computers for over 25 years.

Re:Legal Defence

[ViperAFK (960095)]

40 Years would be completely ridiculous even if it was intentional, rape and manslaughter convicts can get less time than that.

Re:Legal Defence

[nightfire-unique (253895)]

40 Years would be completely ridiculous even if it was intentional, rape and manslaughter convicts can get less time than that.

Any amount of prison time would be completely ridiculous even if it was intentional. It's sex. It's normal. It's healthy. They'll be having it in a few years regardless. It's how they were made. It's how our species exists and propagates. It's irrational to fear, hate or chastise it. Write it 1,000 times on a blackboard, if you have to.

Should she be fired if it was intentional? Sure. Code of conduct, and all that. But jailed? Not in a rational, just society (and certainly not in Canada, most of Europe, Japan, Russia, Brazil, or most other nations. Maybe in Iran or Saudi Arabia, though..)

Jail time is devastating to people and the economy and should be reserved for dangerous people. Not those who offend the moral majority.

I feel a song coming on....!

[hexed_2050 (841538)]

*sings* The Internet is for porn...

40 years?!?

[Myrrh (53301)]

40 years? For this? Good lord. Aren't there any real criminals we could lock up instead? It's insane.

I'd consider even four years to be excessive for such an offense.

Re:40 years?!?

[BoRegardless (721219)]

Teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.

Re:40 years?!?

[QCompson (675963)]

Teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.

Don't put any ideas into the heads of legislators. Instead of decreasing the 40 year penalty for this crime, they'll just ramp up other punishments until they're 40 years. Kissing a student: 40 years. Waving hello suggestively to a student: 40 years. Having a student interpret your cough as sexual: 40 years. As far as I can tell, sentences almost never become more lenient, they just get progressively harsher and more draconian.

Re:40 years?!?

[falconwolf (725481)]

40 years? For this? Good lord. Aren't there any real criminals we could lock up instead? It's insane.

Don't you know politicans want to look like thier tough on crime? The easiest way to do this is to go after people for non violent "crimes". Send someone who uses marijuana recreationally in their home to gaol for 25 years or another person accused of showing children porn for 40. Of cource they'd then have to release murderers and rapists after just 5 years.

Falcon

Re:40 years?!?

[HappyEngineer (888000)]

I'd consider even 4 minutes at a trial to be too excessive for this. Who in their right mind thought this was something that should even be prosecuted?

The moral of the story: never ever do anything of any kind anywhere near children that are not yours. And, walk on eggshells around your own kids. Never become a teacher for people under 18 because you can end up in jail for doing nothing wrong. Never work at a day care center. Never talk to kids on the street even to ask them the time. You are putting your freedom in another person's hands when doing so.

This sort of prosecution is the exact opposite of helping children. By making teaching a risky job, you're going to drive even more people away from the profession. No sane person would ever become a teacher to kids. The money is low. The aggravation is high. The legal risk is high. You have to really love being around kids to work under those conditions. Heck, one day maybe the only people who would willingly be teachers are pedophiles who can't help themselves. It's the catholic priest principle. (priests aren't allowed to have sex, so only sexually repressed people become priests, and sexually repressed people will sometimes lose control in the worst possible way)

The more we try to protect the children, the worse we make the world for those children.

Re:40 years?!?

[Myrrh (53301)]

I'm a dad, and I'm far more outraged that this woman's life could potentially be thrown away over a mistake than I am outraged that a few kids might have been—OMG—exposed to porn.

lazy

[crAckZ (1098479)]

i remember when teachers would have sex with the students. now they just show you internet porn. techers at public schools have gotten so lazy. Do it right or dont do it.

Re:lazy

[AccUser (191555)]

Do it right or dont do it.

Hadn't you heard? Those who can, do. Those who can't teach.

Injury....

[Brian Ribbon (986353)]

"....risk of injury to a minor"

Indeed, I'm sure the boys were horrified when they had to tolerate pop-up porn after being able to view the stuff they'd bought with their mom's credit card....

Forty years in jail?

[demiurgency (1072428)]

This whole topic makes me so incredibly furious. Forty years in jail, for being the vicitm of spyware? Even if the defendant used a school laptop in at home and visited some questionable sites, that should at most earn her a fine, as a strict warning to other educators that extremely careful to not bring a laptop into the class when it might be compromised. The only real justice here would be if the creator of that pop-up ad/spyware would be tracked down by their 1-900 number and they be convicted to forty years in jail. This is an utter failure of the justice system.

You guys are great!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm happily posting from an European country. I remember a handful of events like this, usually with those "videotape" thingies you hardly remember anymore...well, back to the story. Occasionally it was the teacher who made a little mistake, more often it was one of the kids who smuggled in some porn when the teacher wasn't watching. The latter happened a few times in my class. I was maybe 13. (Never was the one who smuggled it, though. Honestly!)

Now, what was the reaction, from both the kids and the parents?

Basically, "Hee hee." Maybe some frowning by those few who actually go to church (quite rare around here) but that's all. If you even tried suing over this, you'd more likely get fined for being a crackpot and wasting the court's time.

"Injury to a minor"? 40 years? This would be some great comedy if it wasn't true. Now it's tragicomedy.

Porn inflicts injuries now?

[LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407)]

Amero had faced 40 years on the conviction of four counts of risk of injury to a minor

Risk of injury! What, were they worried the children would all go blind or something?

Add'l Info

[Evets (629327)]

According to http://www.courant.com/news/local/hcu-amerotrial-0 606,0,4739321.story [courant.com] the state is unlikely to prosecute her a second time.

Also, there, it states that her sentencing was postponed 4 times this spring as the state considered new evidence. It's not clear how much - if any - time was spent in jail.

It's disturbing that the teachers unions did not come to her defense, or at least push to have more light shed on the situations that teachers face regularly in the classroom. Yeah, this girl was a substitute, but the case has a large bearing on teachers in general.

If I was sent to investigate this situation, and ran into a pregnant substitute teacher who was given instructions not to turn off the computer under any circumstances it would be hard not to take a look at the potential pop-up/spyware situation. Is there nobody that works for the police department, prosecutors office, the school, or the school board who has any real IT experience?

Re:Add'l Info

[pongo000 (97357)]

It's disturbing that the teachers unions did not come to her defense

As a long-time union member, I can assure you that the image of the union (or gains made via concessions by management) almost always trumps the protectionism provided its members. I have personally been "sold down the river" when it became clear that the union stood more to gain from honoring management's wishes that I would just go away rather than defending me (ironic, since I was a union rep with the singular goal of defending my bargaining unit members). I have seen many others treated similarly over the years.

BTW, this really isn't a dig for or against unions; it's just something you accept when you get involved with a union.

We covered the original conviction...

[boyko.at.netqos (1024767)]

at length on NetworkPerformanceDaily.com [networkper...edaily.com]

Here are some links to stories we did:

• The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: An Introduction [networkper...edaily.com]
• The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: Commentary by Mr. Herb Horner [networkper...edaily.com] (Witness for the Defense)
• The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: More Information In The Interlude [networkper...edaily.com] (Covers Steve DelGiorno, CEO of ComputerCOP software, which featured in the trial)
• The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: Commentary by Detective Mark Lounsbury [networkper...edaily.com] (Witness for the Prosecution)
• The IT Management Implications of the Strange Case of Julie Amero [networkper...edaily.com]

Double Standard

[Das Auge (597142)]

Whenever I hear about this stuff, or when some hot female teacher has sex with a student, I know that as an adult, and a parent, I'm supposed to be upset and outraged, but... If it was me, and some hot female teacher wanted to do some extracurricular activities at her house or some hot chick from my class wanted to take me on a magic carpet ride...I don't think I'd be that upset.

The middle-American obsession...

[vorlich (972710)]

with pornography is just weird, and even though I am a born and bred Scottish Lutheran - sheesh I did Grow-Up and had an education. Resident as I am on the Continent, (where the Alps are on my doorstep) I am fortunate enough to live where the local population, in general, has a very sensible attitude to sex. It occupies no more of an obsession than clothes, food, beer, balsamico, olive oil and er...George W. Bush (Okay, you can't have everything), so while this is a marginally interesting post it is really a huge load of tosh about an idiosyncrancy that is entirely peculiar to our companions across the big pond, who spent some time chucking English tea into Boston Harbour.
You know sex, drugs,rock n roll - these are just things we do.
Snowboarding is where we are at.
What we want is long powder.

Re:The middle-American obsession...

[TheRealSlimShady (253441)]

It's quite strange isn't it - the American moral police don't seem to have any problem with showing pretty graphic violence (or even torture) but heaven forbid that some see a breast or some pubes.

Happened to us - sort of...

[evil_aar0n (1001515)]

When I served on our local school board, one of our teachers had pop-ups take over his screen when a student used the PC while the teacher was logged in. He quickly responded to the situation to minimize the exposure, but some students still saw things they shouldn't, according to the district, and it was reported up the chain. When I heard about it, I was more unhappy with the IT folks who can manage to block all sorts of sites, and lock down this, and make impenetrable that, according to their boasts, but couldn't block a pop-up. I argued that if anyone should be punished, it should be the head IT guy, but, as only one voice among seven on the board, I was overruled and the principal wrote up the teacher for some infraction or another - I don't recall exactly what they settled on. I don't believe it was turned over to the police or DA, though.

Good luck with the re-trial, but if their district is anything like ours, a "not guilty" verdict still won't help her get her job back. Not that she'd want to work for them, anyway...

Most completely missing the point

[cdrguru (88047)]

The biggest problems in schools in the US today are the parents and administration. The teacher is caught in the middle.

Absolutely, any teacher that allowed something to be viewed that parents object to will be villified, investigated and possibly fired by the administration. It doesn't matter if it is pornography, white supremacy, or evolution. If the parents do not agree with the material, the teacher is in trouble for bringing it out in the classroom. And in most cases, the teacher is getting zero support from the administration.

This teacher that was told not to turn off the computer and couldn't seem to control it obviously had no business in a classroom with a computer in it. Any barrage of porn popups is going to be distracting, titilating and going to cause problems when the students talk about what they have seen. Sure, you can say "Titties for everyone" but the parents don't seem to agree. They want to control their children's access to explicit sexual materials and the school is telling them that they can. So when a teacher proves this control isn't present, the parents blame the school and the teacher.

Sex education in US schools has been watered down over the last 20-30 years so completely that it is almost pointless. The parents of even a minority of children can block this from being any meaningful exchange of information. The result is what the parents say they want - they control access to sexual information. So girls end up having sex at 12 without ever understanding this is where babies come from and yes, you can get pregnant if you do it standing up. But parents are demanding this kind of control so the school gives in.

Prosecutors gone wild

[jkabbe (631234)]

The fact that this case is being prosecuted just sickens me. This prosecutor needs to stand behind the Duke lacrosse prosecutor in the line to get his license revoked.

Exactly one option for "justice served"

[sdo1 (213835)]

There is exactly one option that will, at this point, make me say "justice served." That is complete and immediate dismissal of all charges and disbarment of the prosecutor who pursued this in the first place.

If this does go to trial, my defense strategy would be this: Bring one expert witness after another to the stand to testify that this could happen on a poorly patched and insecure system regardless of what this woman may have done. Eventually the prosecution will have to stipulate that fact to which one must then say "So, why are we here?"

This just makes me amazingly angry.

One more note... don't try to wiggle out of jury duty, folks. That may be your chance to be the voice or reason and to see justice done. It may also be an opportunity to exercise your right of Jury Nullification. [wikipedia.org]

-S

Re:Analysis of her system

[Intron (870560)]

Or the janitor.

Re:Analysis of her system

[silas_moeckel (234313)]

Having worked at an ISP I've seen first hand what the FBI and secret service call computer forensics it's pitiful. Best example was we got all the paperwork to send a copy of a virtual dedicated server, not a problem tar.gz on a dvd and sent it off. There computer expert could not understand that I think is the oldest method to bundle up files and compress them still used. Resending him a zip file fixed that then he had issues with unix end of line. This guy was a computer forensic examiner, I hope the terrorists never figure out how to use something other than windows. Before somebody mentions it the scope of the paperwork did not cover the whole hard drive or I would have used encase or dd.

Re:Here's a crazy idea...

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

You assume teachers know how to do this. An English teacher doesn't need to know how to play cat and mouse with Windows security, S/he needs to know how to engage kids, teach kids and the subject in question. IT skills don't come into this what so ever.

The saying goes "Jack of all trades, master of none", it's not just random chance you know.

Re:Here's a crazy idea...

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

But really, is anyone ever really "injured" by information?

"Mommy, guess what I learned at school today! I tried it on ALL the boys, and they want me to do it again!"

Re:She should lose her teaching license

[by Anonymous Coward]

Got links to back your assertions? I haven't read anything that suggests that she left those images up on the screen for hours.

Re:She should lose her teaching license

[harlows_monkeys (106428)]

Story based on trial testimony and juror statements here [norwichbulletin.com].

That page contains links to where you can download and read the trial transcript, if you want more than that story summarizes.

Re:She should lose her teaching license

[by Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to offend you, but I frankly doubt that you actually read the transcripts that you link to.

You claim that this happened in an elementary school, but it was in a middle school. By that you imply that the the kids were much younger than they really were. At the time of the hearings, all the students that testified were fifteen, and they said that they were thirteen years old when the incident took place. (One student said (s)he wasn't sure if (s)he was twelve).

You also claim that the kids were exposed to the porn for several hours, but in the transcripts the kids explicitly say that the students could not see the porn from their seats, as the monitor was on the teacher's desk and facing away from them. They say they caught glimpses of the "popups" when they went to the front of the room (to ask about the assignment they were working on, to throw some trash away, etc.). The real scandal began when those students talked about what they saw with other students outside of the classroom, but based on the testimonies most of those students never really saw the images.

So, people who read your comment will get their emotions manipulated, as they will think that these were dozens of pre-teens who were exposed to hard core porn being continuously presented to them for several hours in a large monitor that was facing them (a setup very common in elementary schools, where a handful of computers are placed against the walls, facing towards the center of the room). And that my friend, is a very different picture from what the testimonies say.

Re:She should lose her teaching license

[by Anonymous Coward]

> She could have simply covered the monitor. An elementary
> school classroom would have plenty of items available to allow
> that (construction paper, tape). She could have sent the kids
> to the playground or cafeteria or assembly room.

You know what's funny? You expect this woman to react appropriately in the heat of the moment. OTOH, you, who is under no pressure and has all the time in the world, failed to come up with the most effective way to prevent the images, i.e. turn off the monitor, and instead would be running around the classroom looking for construction paper and tape.

Re:Hang on...

[KarmaMB84 (743001)]

It was brought up and the police admitted they did ZERO forensics on the computer in question. She was still convicted.

Think of the children!

Re:Hang on...

[HikingStick (878216)]

She did fight it. She did let them know that the pop-up pictures just kept coming. She did indicate she tried to shield the children once she saw what was happening. Evidence was suppressed that would have disclosed the amount and nature of malware on her system. That's why this was tossed back by the higher court.

Unfortunately, if you're technically literate, you might find it difficult to find a judge who understands the technology, even moreso a full jury of your peers. If you've ever worked a help desk, just imagine a random sampling of 10 of your users sitting on a jury. Do you think they'll be able to make head or tails of the technical arguments, even with lots of pictures and mono-syllabic definitions?