Rick Green of the Courant is reports that the state attorney is finally realizing how the prosecution of Julie Amero was wrong.
The state of Connecticut spent two years investigating before it won a speedy conviction of Julie Amero - the infamous Norwich porn teacher - this January.
But it was never as tidy as the Norwich Public Schools, the Norwich police, the state of Connecticut and the Norwich Bulletin newspaper made it seem.
In truth, Amero, a clumsy computer novice, was the victim of malicious software that took over the PC in the classroom where she was substituting on Oct. 19, 2004. Since Amero’s arrest, the state has refused to even consider this possibility.
Then, a few weeks ago, as Amero faced sentencing, Assistant State’s Attorney David J. Smith filed a startling motion in Superior Court:
“The state has not completed a full examination of all the issues which may affect its position at the sentence hearing.”
Translation: We were wrong. We are trying to figure a CYA way out of this mess.
They still are. Amero’s sentencing Thursday was delayed again until June 6 - the fourth postponement since March. She’s still convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, facing a potential 40 years in jail.
“There were issues raised by the defense subsequent to the trial,” State’s Attorney Michael Regan said Thursday.
Back in January, there was no uncertainty. Amero was a bumbling porn-surfer guilty of four counts of risk of injury to a minor. Smith even objected to evidence that a key witness wanted to present that would have shown that Amero was a victim of “spyware” and pornographic “pop-up” ads bombarding the computer.
“The evidence is very strong, very clear-cut, that the defendant was the only person that had access to that computer,” Smith said in his closing argument. The pop-ups argument, he told judge and jury, was ridiculous.
“It’s very clear that that just didn’t happen,” Smith concluded.
The other piece of the puzzle is the inconsistent investigations conducted by Police in other parts of the state when it comes to investigating computer porn and minors. Codifying how these investigations should take place will be a good start. The police are not computer experts, nor are they in a position to investigate computers forensically, whatever the criminal activity.
And maybe the state legislature should have spent some time asking themselves why showing naked people on a computer screen to a minor has a sentence of 40 years when committing sexual abuse with a minor only carries 10 years.
source: Courant, Porn Case: Ducking For Cover, Rick Green, May 18, 2007
