The strange case of Julie Amero
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Update: Updates and analysis here.
Only recently have I tuned in to the prosecution of Julie Amero. Amero was a substitute teacher in the Norwich school district who was offered the use of a computer password by a fellow teacher so she could e-mail her husband. Described as "computer illiterate", she probably clicked on something that started opening up pornographic pop-ups in her browser. This is something we were all familiar with in the days that preceded Firefox and pop-up blockers. The kids in her class naturally swarmed the computer and a prosecution for Risk of Injury to a Minor ensued.
During the morning, she tried but could not prevent students from viewing the pop-up ads.
She said that she asked other teachers for help. They declined.
In the days and weeks after, an uproar ensued when parents and administrators learned what had happened.
Amero, of Windham, was charged with multiple counts of risk of injury to a minor. On Jan. 5, after a two-day jury trial, Amero was convicted on four counts.
As the above article tries to explain, however, it seems that to believe she is actually guilty of these crimes requires a huge leap of faith.
"It is so far out, I cannot believe it," said W. Herbert Horner, a Montville computer consultant who testified for the defense, but who, because of an apparent error by Amero’s lawyer, was unable to explain in detail to the jury what had happened.
Horner told me why the techie blogging world is apoplectic over this case: Software known as "spyware" had infected the computer in Amero’s room.
Apparent error by Amero’s lawyer? This is right up my alley! I wonder what the "error" was. The jury, however, chose to believe an apparent computer novice police detective and now faces up to 40 years in prison because she rejected a deal that would have sentenced her "only" to probation.
What would you do in a similar situation? Would you stick to your guns and deny mens rea or would you take the deal? It is an incredibly difficult situation with devastating consequences.
I will stay tuned to this case. A Habeas will almost certainly follow.
powered by performancing firefox
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
That is the craziest statute I have ever read. Someone really should challenge it as being un-
constitutionally vague andambig-
uous. It carries too much time for it to be permitted to be enforced without a mens rea element, which is the effect when the “or does any act likely to impair the health or morals.” alternative is invoked.
This is the result of multi-
ple amendments to a statute by politicians trying to curry votes and not caring about mak-
ing certain that the law is cor-
rect when it is altered. They find a highly publicized case and ramrod legislation through to make it seem like they are champions of the people.
It’s a pity that some poor woman must have her entire life destroyed because of the state legislature’s unconstitutional statute.