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.'"

Comments

Justice Still Not Done

[JimMcc]

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

[Repossessed]

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.

Re:Justice Still Not Done

[sjames]

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.

wait what

[Brian Gordon]

Don't tag this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense! Some poor teacher was just convicted of a misdemeanor for something that she had no control over.

Re:wait what

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Travesty

[Rinisari]

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

[TerranFury]

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 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?

Re:About Time

[TheGavster]

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!".

Baka.

[girlintraining]

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:About Time

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:New Meaning

[shrubya]

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.

Re:About Time

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Casting doubt on the effectiveness of state apparatus".

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.

Re:New Meaning

[TerranFury]

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.

Re:About Time

[lysergic.acid]

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.