Slashdot Log In
Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich Pornography Case
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:20 PM
from the much-ado-about-nothing dept.
from the much-ado-about-nothing dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Hartford Courant:
"Almost 18 months after a pornography conviction that could have sent her to jail for 40 years was thrown out, former Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero plead guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct Friday afternoon. The plea deal before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich ends a long-running drama that attracted attention from around the world. ... She had originally been charged with 10 counts of risk of injury to a minor and later convicted on four of them. ... In June of 2007, Judge Hillary B. Strackbein tossed out Amero's conviction on charges that she intentionally caused a stream of 'pop-up' pornography on the computer in her classroom and allowed students to view it. Confronted with evidence compiled by forensic computer experts, Strackbein ordered a new trial, saying the conviction was based on 'erroneous' and 'false information.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Teacher Found Guilty of Endangering Kids Due to Spyware 597 comments
nursegirl writes "Norwich, Conn seventh grade teacher, Julie Amero has been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor after her classroom PC displayed pornographic pop-ups in class. While an expert for the defendant said he had discovered spyware on her PC that had been downloaded from a hairstyling site, the local police investigator claimed that the spyware had been downloaded from actively visiting porn sites. Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance. The school's internet filtration software was not working because it's license had expired. Amero faces up to forty years in prison."
[+]
Teacher Julie Amero Gets a New Trial 341 comments
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."
Submission: Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich Pornography Case by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
About Time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about "making an example" rather than finding the truth and having the case dismissed entirely.
Parent
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure it's really so much "making an example" as avoiding any compensation claims. She's been unfairly prosecuted. Everything the prosecutor said outside the court could have been sued over since, if she was innocent, it would have been proven slanderous. Now she has one charge and an easy risk of getting into more trouble if she opens up any further court action. I think it's more about protecting one particular prosecutor by keeping her out of the way than any particular global message.
Parent
Re:About Time (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree that could very well be... But we all know that society's stance on "adult content" is ridiculous.
Had the teacher's computer shown pictures of guns, or someone getting maimed from styleproject, this would have never gone to court. If it had gotten any media attention at all, it would have been 10 seconds on the nightly news about a computer mishap.
Parent
Re:About Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are prosecutors and cops out there who will keep going after every case until they get "something" out of it. Even after an acquittal, they will basically put the defendant under a microscope and keep dragging them in on new charges until they get some sort of a guilty plea or conviction.
This is really common with organized crime prosecutions, with John Gotti being a textbook example. It took several tries, but they did finally get him.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious what they are making an example of. It seems that the gross IT incompetence at the school is now getting other people possibly sent to jail, even if they didn't do anything. You have to love computers in schools. They have un-maintained PCs, you have no authority to do anything, and no waiver you can sign saying you can't be sued for any damages. But if a porn pop-up happens and you're within 3 feet of it, you're busted.
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
That was so that the justice system could point to something and say "See! She IS a deviant! We didn't incarcerate an innocent and waste everyone's time and taxdollars over something that is frivolous by inspection!".
Parent
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm joking, of course; but it seems that, if your case has made the system look sufficiently foolish, you can't be allowed to get away completely.
Parent
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
this is a clear case of criminal negligence. and i'm not talking about the teacher. i'm talking about the judge, the police, and the prosecutor who, either through malice or incompetence, tried to lock an innocent woman up for 40 years.
at the very least they should be fired from their posts. anyone with even the slightest shred of reason and experience using a computer could see how idiotic it is punish someone for browser pop-ups she had no control over. if anything, it should be the site owners who use pornographic pop-ups with indiscretion or install adware/malware on the computers of unsuspecting users who should have been put on trial.
if a teacher can be tried for unprofessional/disorderly conduct and lose her teaching license based on things which she had no reasonable control over, then those involved in the earlier case decision can certainly be fired for their actions which they had full conscious control over, and which have actually resulted in real harm--ending the career of an innocent school teacher and generally ruining her life.
the scary thing is, the state's attorney still thinks she should have been put away. and that guy is still the New London County state's attorney.
Parent
Justice Still Not Done (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts say that evidence was flawed. They through out that case as clear cut abuse. And what does the DA do? The say they'll charge here again.
So in order to avoid further embarrassment they "let her off" with a charge of disorderly conduct.
She still got screwed for something she was a victim of!
Re:Justice Still Not Done (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only did they go after her again, but they refused to go after the cop who lied in court about the forensic evidence, and the prosecutors who suppressed a state forensic report that concluded the popups were from spyware.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Par for the course in the justice system. There's a cronyistic network set up to protect bad cops, bad judges and bad prosecutors. If there's one reform I'd like to see, it should be that if someone if falsely convicted based on bad evidence, the cops, prosecutors and judge involved should be forced to serve that person's *full* sentence instead, while that person collects their wages and pensions. Make this sort of thing so horrifyingly damage for bad cops and lawyers that they'll do what they're suppos
Re:Justice Still Not Done (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one of the more moronic things I've heard in a while, and every so often, it keeps coming up again.
Firstly, cops and lawyers are not supposed to presume innocence. The justice system is, and the Court as an entity is supposed to presume it at a trial, but the prosecutors have no such limitation. Cops, of course, have nothing to do with guilt or innocence at all, really. The presumption of innocence is a legal theory for how defendants are supposed to be treated... but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.
Secondly, your idea, like many others that have come before it, would cripple the justice system to no appreciable gain. The Court as an entity is designed to be independent so that there are limited or no repercussions of arriving at a specific judgment- specifically so that it will not be constrained as you are suggesting.
Parent
Re:Justice Still Not Done (Score:5, Insightful)
but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.
The instant a prosecutor or cop attempts to bury exculpatory evidence or fabricate damning evidence, they cross the line and become criminals themselves. There is a certain justice in them facing exactly the criminal sanctions they unjustly tried to push upon an innocent citizen.
At the very least, they should never work in the fields of justice or law enforcement again.
A prosecutor's job is to get the guilty convicted, not simply to get convictions at any cost. While there should be a high threshold of proof to convict a prosecutor or cop, fabricating evidence or suppressing exculpatory evidence should meet that threshold.
Parent
Sends a clear message (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only did they go after her again, but they refused to go after the cop who lied in court about the forensic evidence, and the prosecutors who suppressed a state forensic report that concluded the popups were from spyware.
It sends a clear message that our criminal "justice" system is seriously broken. And it sends the unintended message that if you're smart and have an option, avoid teaching or substitute teaching, don't volunteer for Scouts or church activities that have anything to do with young people. You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.
So the next time you're tempted to complain about a lack of math and science teachers, remember this incident. The only people willing to get involved will be other parents and, ironically, the predators.
Parent
Re:Sends a clear message (Score:5, Interesting)
You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.
This has already happened. I can't and don't have more time find the story now, but IIRC in the UK a few years ago, a lone male motorist noticed a little girl wandering alone in the woods. He felt he should stop and make sure she was okay, but was worried that if someone (like her parents) came across the scene they'd get the wrong idea (or worse, the girl would get the wrong idea and run screaming to her parents) and he'd go through exactly what you described, so he went on his way.
Shortly after, the girl fell into a nearby river and drowned.
He felt terrible when the news broke and told his story afterwards, and opinions were fairly evenly divided between disgust at his inaction and agreeing with his line of thinking, which goes to show that by "Think[ing] of the children!" you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Parent
wait what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wait what (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:wait what (Score:5, Insightful)
because many teachers are drowning in apathy
Many teachers are drowning apathy because they're powerless to deal with shithead kids and their shithead "me-first" baby-boomer parents who are too busy with their careers and reliving their youth to get off their asses and take responsibility for their shithead kids' actions as well as teaching their kids to be responsible for their own actions. Don't blame the teacher for the fuckups of yourself and your shithead kids.
Parent
Re:wait what (Score:4, Insightful)
not our problem
What a shining example you set.
Parent
Misplaced priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the kids had been exposed to violent images like a war that has killed a million people far from removing the kids from the room we'd have a fund raising drive to support the glorious war crime committing troops, right?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/13/winter_soldier/ [salon.com]
Where the fuck are our priorities?
Considering our society is committing war crimes and the economy is going down the drain I think the kiddies seeing a titty is the least of our worries. They are doing to learn where babies come from at some point, why are we so hung about that?
http://books.google.com/books?id=-A-7d-2VpwcC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=Europe+nude+advertising&source=web&ots=Q9pqfc6bGy&sig=TMqCxpzJk3sOB5TXsvPNz9UH91M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result [google.com]
Americans need to grow up and get our priorities straight or we will continue to fall behind Europe and Asia and become a laughing stock country, no longer famous for tech but for puritan religious fanatics much like Iran.
Parent
Re:Misplaced priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Travesty (Score:5, Insightful)
This is still a travesty of justice. Disorderly conduct and neutering her of her source of income is terrible for something of which she had no control.
Re:Travesty (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Travesty (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question is: which of the programs or websites was responsible for showing porn to children?
Bonus question for the prosecutor to answer: who wrote that program or website?
Parent
Re:Travesty (Score:5, Funny)
Two digit ID, think of the children whargarbl...
Holy crap, the trolls have sleeper cells!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suspending her from working in that school system for a couple of months would be a slap on the wrist.
Bringing in the DA was reactionary.
Re:Travesty (Score:5, Insightful)
You used the phrase, "protect kids in their care." The court used the phrase "risk of injury to a minor." Will people please stop this disingenuous rhetoric? What injury was risked? "Mental trauma" associated with seeing boobies? From what did these children need protecting?
The 'poor little children' involved were 7th graders. That makes them about 13 years old, which puts some of them at the beginning and some of them at the middle of puberty. Now look at some data [durex.com] which indicates that the median age of first intercourse in the U.S. is just under 17, and realize that if that's the median, then half of people first had sex earlier than this, and there is likely a non-negligible portion of the histogram that is nonzero at the 7th grade level.
For many of the children in that classroom, do you really believe that this was their first exposure to porn?
Now let's look at the balance of harms. On the one hand, we have a woman who lost her job and, in all likelihood, her ability to teach anywhere else ever again. And on the other -- some pubescent students saw things a good portion of them have likely already seen anyway.
So was this really fair?
Parent
Re:Travesty (Score:5, Insightful)
And a better point is, which damage, exactly, is caused? Believe it or not, sex is not intrinsically "damaging" in the slightest. Attitudes toward sex, the same attitudes that caused this poor woman to be harassed, are what make any sight of sexual activity "damaging" by programming children to view sex negatively or as "forbidden" or something to hide and be ashamed of.
The mentality of the "justice" department and the prosecutor here have done far more damage to the teacher AND the "children" (12-13 year olds are not really that innocent, as you noted) involved.
Parent
Baka. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is that it took a bunch of forensic experts and a lot of taxpayer dollars several months to convince the court that pornography can appear in popups when browsing the internet that the user didn't explicitly ask for. This is just another reason why computer crimes need special courts to process cases -- the level of computer literacy amongst court officials is still very low, and at the risk of being yelled at for saying so... It's because many of these judges are at or past retirement age and haven't the inclination to learn.
Re:Baka. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just another reason why computer crimes need special courts to process cases...
Nonsense. The problem is in the officers of the court. You'll either end up filling the computer crimes court with idiots, or if you figure out a way to get non-idiots in positions of power, you might as well do that for the regular courts.
The court officials are probably not geneticists either, yet presumably they deal with DNA evidence at least occassionally.
Parent
Re:Baka. (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason is because it doesn't matter; the Court doesn't need to have perfect knowledge over all the subjects over which it governs.
The only case in which it is generally useful to set up special courts is where the law is very complicated or unusual- UCMJ appeals courts, tax courts, that sort of thing, because the law itself would not be something your average judge would know about in detail.
However, in the case of a simple trial like this, it is not the responsibility of the judge to be informed. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to inform the Court. A Court should not be making decisions on the basis of its own investigations, after all, at least not in an adversarial situation.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work for a court as tech support. Many, many of our judges are as described: not inclined to learn the finer details of computers, and don't have the fundamental understanding of how computers work. But they are beginning to, as spam and spyware impacts them on a personal level, an understanding is slowly coming.
I believe that the problem, as was posted earlier, is that many of the judges are far past retirement age and not willing to start learning a whole new branch of knowledge. DNA evidence has an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And, having spent some quality time in a district courthouse (hey, it was a series of field outings in a class on the Justice system!) I can tell you that the geriatric judge stereotype is just that- a stereotype. I never saw one under 30 but I didn't see any older than their early 50's.
Disgraceful DA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any job interview will mean she will have to detail the offense and her "arrest record".
Not exactly true, it depends on the wording of the application. If she is only asked for felony convictions then she doesn't have to list it. According to the Hartford Courant [courant.com] she plead to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Re:Disgraceful DA (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe prosecutors need alternate "metrics for success"?
If my job performance was based on my percentage of successful convections and I knew I was assigned a looser case, it's up to me to think of alternate ways to succeed at my job
A system that encourages this behavior is totally broken
Parent
If this were a man, (Score:3, Insightful)
there wouldn't have been any chance for a plea bargain. The poor bastard would have been lynched.
Re:If this were a man, (Score:5, Interesting)
The body of psychological evidence indicates that children are suggestible, that memory is malleable, and that kids will report sexual abuse even when it did not occur. I'm remembering a famous experiment described in intro psychology courses: The setup was this: A toddler was taken into a mock doctor's office for a "checkup," in which the experimenter did nothing more than tie a small red string around the child's finger; this was videotaped by a hidden camera. Then, the child was interviewed in the manner common in sex-abuse legal cases at the time, in which she was presented with a doll and asked to indicate whether the doctor had touched her, and where. After repeated, gentle, innocuous-seeming questioning, the child reported obscene things that I could have not come up with myself; among other things, she reported that the doctor had rammed a stick into her vagina, which she pantomimed violently (the interview was also videotaped). What seems to have happened is that she responded subliminally to subtle, unintentional cues from the interviewer, and reported whatever the interviewer was afraid to (or wanted to?) hear. It's essentially the same phenomenon as what occurred with Clever Hans [wikipedia.org], the horse that could "do arithmetic." The horse was posed questions in the form of marks on the ground, and would tap out the answer -- one tap to say "one," two taps to say "two," etc -- in response. It astounded all observers, but what was actually happening is that the horse was picking up on the crowd's reaction to his tapping: Tension would build as he approached the right number, and then immediately release; this is when he would stop. In any event, the point is that apparently cut-and-dry testimonies are anything but, and people -- especially, but not just, children -- are hugely suggestible, and can honestly remember things that never happened as a subliminal response to unintentional bias in the interviewer.
The conclusion you're forced to draw is that there are hundreds of innocent men now in jail for sex crimes, especially crimes against children, that they didn't commit. The sad irony is that sexual abuse really is now happening -- in jail, and these men are the victims.
Parent
Re:If this were a man, (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If this were a man, (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of thing you describe is why any intellegent person should think twice about going into teaching. It's just too risky.
I've heard other people say this as well, and there's an element of truth to it. Unfortunately, what does this do to society? What happens when children -- especially boys -- have no male coaches, mentors, scout leaders... because it was "too risky?" This kind of paranoia is destroying communities.
Parent
erroneous and false conviction .. (Score:5, Interesting)
don't talk to cops [youtube.com]
Injury to minor? (Score:3)
Does anyone else here find the term "injury to a minor" in this context extremely offensive? Is it not insulting to minors who are actually put at risk of injury?
Like, for example, by people threatening to expell a minor for having a plastic butter knife, or tylenol at school?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the next time a porn picture pops up on your computer while you are trying to navigate to some kids site, while your childing are waiting and watching, shall we indict you for aiding and abetting the abuse of a minor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously I'm new here compared to a 2-digit ID, but come on and RTFA.
She was a SUBSTITUTE teacher. There is no possible way that a substitute could download, install, and run an anti-malware app in the handful of minutes notice she had before classes began. Even if she were allowed to install apps onto school PCs, which is unlikely.
Parent
Re:New Meaning (Score:4, Informative)
1) an expert found the computer was infected on a hairstyling site, not porn surfing
2) "Amero testified that she had told four other teachers and the assistant principal about the popups, but received no assistance. "
3) "The school's internet filtration software was not working because it's license had expired."
Whether she had the technical ability to install a cleansing tool I don't know, but many businesses and institutions these days have policies about installing anything without approval... It wouldn't suprise me if the school rules barred her from installing something to fix herself.
I also imagine she received better treatment than if she were a male
Parent
Re:New Meaning (Score:5, Insightful)
I also imagine she received better treatment than if she were a male
Indeed. Had she been male, she'd be going door to door nowadays introducing herself as the friendly neighborhood sex offender.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was one of the problems: The virus scanner was completely outdated at the school.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Adblock Plus? Are you daft? There should have been network based measures in place to defend against this type of crap.
My guess is they have effectively no IT department, especially given that they are using Windows 98 in classrooms when it is completely unsecurable, and seem to have zero protective measures in place or policies or teacher training.
More than a few people need a serious punch in the crotch over this and the poor woman needs to be cleared and reinstated and issued a full public apology.