Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich Pornography Case

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.'"

Re:Travesty

[digitrev]

Well excuse her for being a little bit dumbstruck at the sudden appearance of porn on the computer screen that she isn't in charge of. Would you and I have turned it off immediately? Of course. If it was a Windows box, we both would have hit Windows+D in a split second, hiding the damn thing and then close it through the Task Manager. However, Ms. Amero is a substitute teacher, and probably not very tech savvy. Give her a break.

Re:Disgraceful DA

[cob666]

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:Common sense?

[Sique]

That was one of the problems: The virus scanner was completely outdated at the school.

Re:New Meaning

[electrogeist]

I didn't follow this closely but per a previous /. article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/13/0753209

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

Re:New Meaning

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118075&cid=9980688 [slashdot.org]
He bought it on Ebay.

Disorderly Conduct

[Anonymous Coward]

Disorderly Conduct is a violation. Not a misdemeanor or felony. Not much different than a parking ticket. It will not follow her for the rest of her life.

Re:Travesty

[cj51]

iirc Amero was given instructions on using the computer from another teacher who also told her not to turn the computer off "under any circumstances". This is what I recall reading 18 month ago. I believe somebody tried to play a joke on her, but I have not heard that it entered into the investigation.

Re:About Time

[Lost Engineer]

Interesting you bring up manslaughter. Murder in this country can get you life or probation depending on how the prosecutor chooses to view your situation. The response to some of this has been to legislate minimum sentences, which, probably contributed to the 40 year possible sentence in this debacle.

Re:Justice Still Not Done

[Anonymous Coward]

"The instant a prosecutor or cop attempts to bury exculpatory evidence"

  Police are not required to provide exculpatory evidence They are not there to represent you.

Re:If this were a man,

[TerranFury]

I'd originally googled before posting, but didn't find the name; I thought I'd refer to my old textbooks next time I had access. But your post motivated me to try some new search strings, and this time I've found it, I think (or at least similar studies).

I believe the study I am referring to was carried out by Ceci (Cornell) and Bruck (McGill). [If not them, then perhaps it was a study by Goodman (UC Davis).] You might want to refer to this paper [uwaterloo.ca]. In particular, see the section on p. 10 titled "Anatomically Detailed Dolls;" the study it describes is not exactly the same as I remember, but similar.

Re:About Time

[jafiwam]

It's called "saving face" in other cultures.

Offer up something that makes the DA "right" but is also harmless enough the alleged perp will agree to.

If the perp accepts the guilty charge for the small thing, the chances of ending up in civil court are much smaller. The perp not accepting the charge, of course could ultimately ind up in supreme court.

The sad thing is, everybody who figures out this was a bogus charge, already knew it was from the start.

Many people supposedly "in charge" of this country are still very clueless about technology (and ways it can fail).