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."

40 years?!?

[Myrrh]

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:Legal Defence

[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 clearly isn't making a damn bit of difference.

For the obvious comparison, I'd rather have this person teaching my students than the person that is so stolid they are still teaching from the textbook they learned from (happened to me, the teacher retired at age 71 or so, one year after he taught me -- he was very proud of his name being on the due date card in one of the books), but never surfs porn, ever.

Re:Legal Defence

[NoOneInParticular]

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.

Forty years in jail?

[demiurgency]

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!

[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.

Re:40 years?!?

[timeOday]

Was she ever actually sentenced to 40 years? My guess is no.

Expert witness

[DimGeo]

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]

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.

Add'l Info

[Evets]

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:Analysis of her system

[Anonymous Coward]

Well don't forget that students were allowed to use the computer to surf the web as well. So it's difficult to say who exactly was surfing what and at what time. I believe the only pages that seemed specifically connected to the substitute teacher's session were cached when she was checking her AOL mail.

What is undisputable, though, is the fact that the school did a piss poor job in securing their pc's. If there's any culpability here, it's on the school administrators.

Double Standard

[Das Auge]

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.

Re:Here's a crazy idea...

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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:Legal Defence

[HermMunster]

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:40 years?!?

[QCompson]

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:She should lose her teaching license

[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.

The middle-American obsession...

[vorlich]

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:40 years?!?

[falconwolf]

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:She should lose her teaching license

[DM9290]

I remember teachers having problems getting slide projectors to work.. let alone a computer. for all she knows taping paper on the monitor would overheat it and cause it to melt.

Are you batshit insane?

[biscon]

Dude what the fuck are you talking about? what the hell is wrong with some of you americans, kids doesn't get harmed by accidentally seeing a porn popup.. Let me repeat: watching a picture of people having sex is not harmful to children ffs. Get it into your skull, no why the hell do you want her fired, its probably some of the pupils who been accessing the porn sites responsible for the popups.. geez..

Re:She should lose her teaching license

[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:The middle-American obsession...

[TheRealSlimShady]

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.

Real Criminals.

[crhylove]

This situation arose because there ARE real criminals involved, and probably not this poor lady:

1. Microsoft. A monopoly that has created an enormous hegemony that is completely insecure and poorly designed.
2. The Media. A group of corporations that are misinforming the population of a democracy so that
3. The Government. Can keep allowing Microsoft and other bloatware vendors to dominate the market allowing
4. Spam Kings. To put porn all over every computer in the nation insuring that
5. School Administrations. continue to use the hegemonic monopoly products and allow their schools network infrastructure to be completely over run with porn.

I mean, let's talk about how things would have been different if the lady had been running Firefox. Or Firefox on Ubuntu. Or Firefox on Ubuntu on a reliable network that had some reasonable amount of IP protection from the get go.

There are criminals involved in this case, and this poor nit wit lady is very likely not one of them. Just another misinformed, ignorant American who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and suffered greatly thanks to Microsoft's inability to design an OS or browser that is remotely secure, and also thanks to the complete erosion of democracy and real news that has allowed that kind of moronic hegemony to take evolve.

Re:Legal Defence

[billcopc]

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:40 years?!?

[garett_spencley]

As far as I can tell, sentences almost never become more lenient, they just get progressively harsher and more draconian.

Capital and corporal punishment have been abolished in many places. Even in systems where it still exists we're no longer burning people alive or crucifying them.

We're no longer sentencing people to deportation to foreign over seas penal colonies where they will be forced to work as slave labourers.

It is also no longer a crime in most countries to have religious beliefs that oppose that of the government. I was tempted to say that we don't convict people for such 'crimes' but I just know I'll get a few responses bringing up detainees of Muslims post-9/11 so I chose my words carefully. Point being: regardless of how you feel regarding the current US legislation's behaviour, it is not a crime in most countries to believe what you want whereas even as recently as the 1800's you could still be convicted of heresy in Italy (for example) etc.

I agree that the last few years have seen some very ridiculous FUD from various places that have resulted in some very ridiculous laws and harsh sentences etc. I am not supporting those instances and I will always believe that there is room for improvement. But step back and look at the big picture. I'm not talking about as far back as a thousand or more years ... but just two *hundred* to five hundred years or so and say that punishments are getting worse. Honestly ...

Re:40 years?!?

[QCompson]

I agree that the last few years have seen some very ridiculous FUD from various places that have resulted in some very ridiculous laws and harsh sentences etc. I am not supporting those instances and I will always believe that there is room for improvement. But step back and look at the big picture. I'm not talking about as far back as a thousand or more years ... but just two *hundred* to five hundred years or so and say that punishments are getting worse. Honestly ...

I should have given some chronological context to my comment. You are correct, of course, but I shudder to think that we will compare modern punishments to those given hundreds of years ago. "Yeah, but during the Spanish Inquisition she would have been burned at the stake for showing porn to her students! 40 years isn't that bad at all!"

I am more distressed, in the last 20-30 years, about how many crimes are now felonies, and the increasing reliance on mandatory minimum sentencing.

Re:Legal Defence

[ViperAFK]

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

Re:Forty years in jail?

[ScrewMaster]

No sane judge would issue such a sentence, though.

True enough, I suppose, but the problem with the modern American Justice system is that it is a crapshoot. You never know what you're facing when you enter the courtroom. Worse, in a situation such as this one, you can't depend upon anyone else in the room having a grasp of the technological underpinnings of your case, even if you do.

Quite simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

100% ban on the internet in schools, only way to protect teachers... surprised the unions haven't jumped on that idea.

Re:Legal Defence

[Saanvik]

No, you are wrong when you state, "there may or may not be evidence of shady behavior". There may have been shady behavior, but there isn't any evidence of shady behavior.

Most completely missing the point

[cdrguru]

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.

Re:Here's a crazy idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please say you're joking. Wikipedia is great, but using it for research is just a really bad idea.

Re:40 years?!?

[jkabbe]

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

Fixed.

Male teachers get sent to prison to die.

Re:Legal Defence

[aeschenkarnos]

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

[jombeewoof]

It happened sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. Right about the same time they took corporal punishment away from parents.
Parents these days are too busy to raise their children, so they force the state to take care of that.
Not all parents, but I would have to say the majority of people I know that have kids are not raising them at all, let alone raising them right. If my friend spanks his 6 year old daughter she will call DSS, (abuse) send her to bed without dinner (neglect) It seems you can't punish kids at all today. As much as I hope to be a father some day, I'm kind of glad I don't have any children because it's impossible to discipline kids these days.

Re:40 years?!?

[iggymanz]

but that'd be exposing kids to the sight of nude human bodies and the natural bodily function of sexual intercourse, instead of the fcc approved wholesome murder, maining, fighting and hateful speech fare we have on prime time tv.

Seriously now, regarding the mind numbing pointlessness of a show like American Idol, making someone see that should incur the death penalty. I kid.

Re:Legal Defence

[brantondaveperson]

And if you think that spanking your child and sending them to bed without their dinner is an effective form of discipline, then I'm rather glad that you don't have any children too.

I have three. And I will never hit them, and never deprive them of their dinner. I guess I must just be a bad parent hey?

Re:Legal Defence

[brantondaveperson]

Well, that would depend on how old the child in question was. What would you do? Give them a belt round the ear? What do you think would happen then? What if they got up off the floor, and told you to fuck off again? Would you hit them harder?

Past a certain age, kids pretty much can do what they want. The key is to bring them up so that they make good choices and not dumb ones. The method by which this can be achieved is not through violence. Try being nice to them when they're little, and teaching good behaviour by example. Be there for your kids, and with a bit of luck they won't be telling you to fuck off when they're older.

But I've got a way to go yet, so if slashdot is still here in 15 years I'll let you know how it went.

Re:You guys are great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to a country founded by the puritans. To quote Robin Williams, "people [the Puritans] so uptight, the English kicked them out."

Re:40 years?!?

[Bios_Hakr]

People always complain when new laws are enacted that are already covered by old laws. Why should we pass law x when law y already covers that?

My guess is that "contributing to the delinquency of" or "abuse of" a child carries a pretty hard penalty. You have to cover everything from letting kids see you smoke or swear all the way up to showing kids how to properly cut up and dispose of a human corpse. Hence, 40-years maximum for violation of that law.

The chances of someone being sentenced to the max are very slim. Especially for a first offense. Especially in something as dumb as this.

More likely than not, she'd be sentenced to a year of probation. She probably wouldn't even have to register as a sex offender. Although, she might lose her teaching certificate.

Anyway, screaming "he can get 40 years for peeing in a bush" is no better than the "cell phones give you cancer" crowd.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Legal Defence

[Anonymous Coward]

Not those who offend the moral minority.

Typo corrected.
They are in the minority, just a very vocal one.

Re:Legal Defence

[greenechidna]

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.

Re:They hate us for our freedom...

[HikingStick]

I agree that educators should not be punnished for teaching young people (including, in an appropriate context, images) about the "very process that brought them into existence," but if you've ever had pop-up pictures grace your monitor, you know that most of them have nothing to do with educating people about procreation and have everything to do with simple gratification. Make a scientific argument that random pr0n images are beneficial. Many studies have concluded they are harmful (and sex education would not be included in that definition of pr0n).

Re:Happened to us - sort of...

[phaggood]

I taught in HS a few years ago in an IT program (miss it, but I digress). Anyway, once while attempting to access a DSL speed testing site I fat-fingered the url ('dls' vs 'dsl') and got a porn site. Another time, I tried to bring up a cooking site, fat fingered it, and got girlie pics. It is a bit chilling that I could be a two-strike felon because my fingers sometimes slip on the keyboard.