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.
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.