Slashdot Mirror


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."

9 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. 40 years?!? by Myrrh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:40 years?!? by QCompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Forty years in jail? by demiurgency · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. You guys are great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Legal Defence by beadfulthings · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
  5. Re:She should lose her teaching license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

  6. Re:Legal Defence by billcopc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  7. Re:Legal Defence by ViperAFK · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. Re:Legal Defence by aeschenkarnos · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.