Julie Amero granted new trial
Well, the hearing has concluded and the Norwich Bulletin is reporting that the judge granted defense’s Motion for a New Trial. Her conviction has been set aside and she has entered proforma pleas of not guilty. No date for a further hearing has been set.
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 “entitles 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.
If the State agrees with the defense that she should not have been convicted, then they can just drop the charges at a subsequent hearing by entering nolles. Whether that happens remains to be seen. Frankly, I can’t think of any other outcome.
The Courant has more (HT: OTS):
In setting aside the guilty verdict, [Judge] Strackbein ruled that the witness the state presented as a computer expert, a Norwich police detective, provided “erroneous” testimony about the classroom computer.
“The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information,” said [Judge] Strackbein.
The judge cited a forensic computer analysis conducted by the state police crime lab – conducted after the guilty verdict – to support the argument that the verdict should be set aside. She said the lab report “contradicts testimony of the state’s computer witness.”
The State would take no position on this Motion today, but did acknowledge that erroneous information about the computer was presented during trial.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on June 6, 2007 at 8:05 am, and is filed under julie amero. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Be sure to see the Hartford Courant article by Rick Green, who has some interesting tidbits. Seems the judge wasn’t all that happy about bloggers’ reactions to the verdict.
about 4 years ago
This whole prosecution is absolutely ludicrous. On its face, and while not literally impossible, the notion that she sat there in a classroom checking out the hardcore porn is silly.
This is almost certainly a malware/browser hijack issue. Any rank-amateur computer hobbyist would’ve been able to discover the malware/browswer hijacker causing the porn popups with a few simple and free anti-malware/spyware tools. I’ve done it dozens and dozens of times myself on friend’s and work computers.
So how could this have gotten this far? Do we have a Nifong in Connecticut?
about 4 years ago
I agree. There was some major goof up here. At least the conviction has now been overturned.
As to how this happened, my best guess is that the prosecutor himself wasn’t too well versed in malware and did what he thought was best: stick by the jury’s verdict and the testimony of his “expert”.
about 3 years ago
It can be very hard to get rid of some of these. I recall a search toolbar someone foolishly installed which took me two hours to stamp out and needed more than one tool and several reboots. I have 30 years experience with computers and their support – I doubt Ms Amero has as much.