While not the complete exoneration that is warranted, the State made the right decision by granting a new trial. This will give former substitute teacher Julie Amero an opportunity to mount a defense that includes testimony from technical people. Not just allegations about what a computer can do by poorly Police witnesses.
As computers become totally integrated in every facet of the life, it is important that Police departments keep up to date with the training to understand how to forensically examine computers, whether it be for criminal activity involving solicitation of minors or financial activities.
From The Courant:
A Superior Court judge Wednesday granted a new trial for Julie Amero, 40, a Norwich substitute teacher whose faulty computer spewed pornographic images in her seventh grade classroom.
The new trial ordered by Superior Court Judge Hillary B. Strackbein comes after a campaign on Amero’s behalf by computer security experts around the country, who offered evidence showing that Amero’s computer was taken over by malicious “spyware” that caused a rapid fire sequence of pornographic “pop-up” windows to appear on the screen.
There’s a big difference between pop-ups that can appear on the screen, well I should say windows pc, uninvited and the purposeful clicking over to a web site that displays porn. Then again there’s a world of difference between looking at porn and being raped or molested. The legislature has to do something with the sentencing guidelines that suggest 40 years for showing porn to a minor, but only 10 years for a rape of a minor.
More from the Courant:
The motion for a new trial was filed on Tuesday by Amero’s attorney, William F. Dow. The motion said that evidence gathered after Amero was convicted in January of four counts of risk or injury to a minor casts serious doubt on her guilt.
At Amero’s trial the state maintained that Amero failed to act to prevent her students from glimpsing at images of the pornography. Assistant State’s Attorney David Smith argued that the evidence was “clear cut” that Amero was at fault because she caused the pornography to appear on the computer.
Amero, who was pregnant at the time of the incident on Oct. 19, 2004, faced as many as 40 years in jail following a January verdict. Her sentencing was postponed four times this spring as the state considered new evidence in the case.
source: The Hartford Courant, Amero Granted New Trial, By RICK GREEN, June 6, 2007
