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."
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.
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
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Here are some links to stories we did:
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
No sir I dont like it.
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.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
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.
Cow Cube