a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Well, it’s happened. I got word earlier this evening that Julie Amero’s case had finally been disposed of. It seems that today, hiding from the glare of media coverage, Julie pled guilty to disorderly conduct, paid a $100 fine and went on her way.

A shame, for sure. What? You thought I’d be happy? I am, to a certain extent, yet I’m rather perplexed why she had to plead to anything at all to get this nightmarish ordeal to end. Rick Green, who has been championing her cause, has the details:

Amero agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Amero, who has been hospitalized and suffers from declining health, also surrendered her teaching license.

Judge Strackbein ordered a new trial over a year and a half ago, in June of 2007 (yes, it has been that long). So what the heck has been going on since then? I suspect the State got another expert to review the logs and investigate the computer, but 18 months?

No, what’s closer to the truth, I suspect, (and evidenced by the surreptitious manner in which this case was resolved) is that the State was embarrassed publicly and nationally and closed its eyes tight and clenched its teeth and hoped and prayed this would go away so it could quietly slink into the courtroom and do away with this stain.

New London County State’s Attorney Michael Regan told me late Friday the state remained convinced Amero was guilty and was prepared to again go to trial.

“I have no regrets. Things took a course that was unplanned. Unfortunately the computer wasn’t examined properly by the Norwich police,” Regan said.

“For some reason this case caught the media’s attention,” Regan said.

He’s just playing dumb. He knows exactly why this case caught media attention – shoddy police work in an area that a growing number of people know a lot about: computers. If this was some investigation where the question was interpretation of DNA evidence or the trajectory of bullets on a windy evening, Julie Amero would have been halfway through her sentence.

Instead, the police department messed up big-time in an area where a lot of people pay attention (and have been victims themselves).

Instead of owning up to their mistake and the possibility that there was an error, the State tried to shore up its ego by stretching this prosecution as long as it could.

What’s even stinkier is the fact that they just couldn’t let her go. Having kept her in limbo for 18 months, with failing health, wasn’t enough. They had to extract something – even if it were a slice of flesh.

I can understand why she accepted the offer and why her lawyer probably convinced her to take it. Get it over with. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that it’s pretty obvious the only reason the State insisted on it is to make themselves look slightly better.

They aren’t fooling anyone.

Enjoy your evening, Julie. There’s nothing good on TV, but I suspect you don’t care.

Update: Karoli, who first brought Julie to my attention, writes indignantly about the pound of flesh the State took from her.

As per Rick Green’s counter, today is 524 days since Julie Amero’s conviction was overturned and a new trial ordered by Judge Strackbein in New London.

The last media coverage was in July.The pending case detail on the Judicial Branch website reports that her case is “on the trial list, to be scheduled” and the last court date was October 27, 2008.

So what’s the deal? Is anything happening? Does anyone know?

There seems to be an absolute dearth of information about the progress of her case. Normally, such would lead me to believe that there’s been a gag order in place, but there would at least have been coverage of the gag order. No such thing. So either the parties are being really, really secretive – or there’s no damn movement. There are only two outcomes here – as there were the first time around: dismissal of the charges or a new trial.

What’s the State waiting for? What’s her lawyer waiting for? Why is there zero action in this case? What am I missing?

This has to be filed under the “what the f*ck is wrong with people today” category.

It’s the digital age and more importantly, it is the social networking age. If you don’t have a MySpace or Facebook account, you’re nobody. Especially teens. Everyone has them and then some. So when middle school resource officer John Nohejl in Florida decided to set up a MySpace account so he could communicate with students in ways they do (with the blessing of the school), it seemed like a brilliant idea.

Too bad he didn’t know Julie Amero. Or remember that in the age of Chris Hansen, people are fucking idiots.

In the goofiest waste of law enforcement time we’ve seen in weeks, an on-campus police officer for a Florida middle school is facing a criminal investigation over his MySpace account. Why? It turns out one of the people on his friends list had a link on his or her profile to an internet porn site.

Or, as the St. Peterburg Times puts it, “kids could navigate from Officer John’s page on the social networking site to ‘Amateur Match Free Sex’ in just three clicks.”

You’re reading correctly. Gulf Middle School resource officer John Nohejl didn’t have porn on his MySpace profile, and he didn’t link to porn. But one of the 170-odd people on his friends list, which seems mostly populated by students at his school, had a link to a legal adult site. Now the New Port Richey Police Department and the Florida attorney general’s elite cyber crimes unit are investigating him for making adult content available to underage children.

The AG apparently thinks inadvertently doing something is the same as intentionally doing something:

Cybersafety “is the attorney general’s highest priority,” said Sandy Copes, the attorney general’s spokeswoman. “I am sure the attorney general would be extremely concerned if a member of the trusted law enforcement community was either inadvertently or directly placing students at risk to being exposed to inappropriate content.”

Yep. You’re now responsible for other people. On the interweb.

So all of you reading out there. If I link to say, CollegeHumor, YOU’RE ALL PERVERTS AND PREDATORS AND ARE CORRUPTING TEH MORALS OF A CHILD !1!1one1!11!1!!!

(Seriously, if you’re at work or if kids are around, don’t Google CollegeHumor. You have been warned. It’s not porn, but there’s adult content.)

The kicker? The school’s website itself linked to some clipart websites which linked to g4y pr0n. Thank you, Chris Hansen, for making the world a crazier place.

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.

Just posted to the Norwich Bulletin online is this story about Julie Amero’s attorneys filing a Motion for a New Trial.

Amero’s attorney, William Dow III, based today’s motion for a new trial on “evidence discovered after the verdicts and now in possession of the state and the defense.” In light of the new evidence, Dow said the jury reached inaccurate conclusions about Amero’s alleged Web surfing.

The judge is expected to rule on the Motion prior to tomorrow’s sentencing. I’ll have more as I know more.

Technorati Tags: julie amero, connecticut

I got sick of typing “Julie Amero’s sentencing postponed again”. It has been, though. Now she is scheduled to be sentenced on June 6th. It’s not clear who requested the continuance, but we do know that the sentencing is now in New London, instead of Norwich.

A possible reason for the shift in venue is an upcoming change in assignments for judges, based on introduction of a new judge. Judge Hillary Strackbein, who will be sentencing Amero, will be assigned to duties in New London.

So June 6 it is.

Technorati Tags: julie amero

Julie Amero’s sentencing has been continued to May 18. Karoli wonders why. The real reason is that I’m away the rest of the week, so I wouldn’t be around to cover the sentencing.

Okay, yes, bad joke. No one knows why. We know that it was at the request of the state. Some people believe there to be a conspiracy. I don’t.

Although, it is getting curioser and curioser.

Technorati Tags: julie amero

In a not so shocking turn of events, Julie Amero’s sentencing has been postponed yet again. It is now scheduled for April 26th.

Amid a flurry of meetings and growing pressure on the state’s attorney’s office, the sentencing of convicted teacher Julie Amero has been postponed until April 26.

No reason for the delay was filed with the clerk at Norwich Superior Court. State’s Attorney Michael Regan, who is now involved in the case, declined to comment. Amero’s lawyers also did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

No one knows yet why it was continued, so there’s no need to speculate. It could mean something; it could mean nothing.

Previous coverage:

• Julie Amero

Technorati Tags: julie amero

The Hartford Courant has a lengthy op-ed piece on Julie Amero ahead of her sentencing this week. Some of it is interesting, most of it is like a bad flashback movie.

What I’m intrigued by is the apparent passion that the prosecutor displayed during closing arguments: “Boom, boom, boom” he is said to have  argued, describing the barrage of pop-ups.

Thursday is the day. Let’s see what happens.

Technorati Tags: julie amero

The Norwich Bulletin has another masterpiece editorial on Julie Amero’s case. I was about to delve into an analysis of it, when I saw that Andrew Kantor (of USA Today) has already done that. Here are some highlights:

But what’s disturbing is that the Bulletin seems to be playing fast and loose with the facts in the case, as well as with its own history of it. 

It wrote on Sunday

Whether Amero was purposefully exploring pornographic Web sites, or was the victim of a technological assault, is irrelevant.

Oddly, though, that wasn’t irrelevant when the Bulletin expressed its opinion in its editorial of January 11, when it wrote

Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero clearly was wrong to access several pornographic Web sites on her computer at Kelly Middle School

and

“Still, she was accused and convicted of intentionally accessing several pornographic sites — not pop-up ads or windows, as she suggested.”

Almost as an afterthought the paper added then, “And she did not turn off the computer when the students saw the images.” 

Now, suddenly, the case is not about whether she deliberately accessed the porn, but about whether she did enough to “protect” the kids who were trying to see the images.

There’s more good stuff. To its credit, the NB does say that the just sentence in this case should be probation with no jail time. However, the paper expresses some happiness about the fact that Amero will never teach again.

I do not recall the last time a newspaper was so involved in a local criminal prosecution. Maybe that’s a good thing.

Per The Norwich Bulletin, Julie Amero’s sentencing has been continued to March 29.

Superior Court Judge Hillary Strackbein agreed Monday, court documents show, to postpone Friday’s sentencing for Julie Amero, 40, the Windham woman convicted last month on four counts of risk of injury to a minor. Her sentencing will take place March 29 in Norwich Superior Court, where she faces 40 years in prison.

Attorney John F. Cocheo, who represented Amero at trial, requested the postponement to allow time for a new attorney and consultant to familiarize themselves with the case.

In his letter to the court, Cocheo said attorney William Dow has become involved in the case, along with sentencing consultant Clinton Roberts. Cocheo could not be reached for comment Monday.

Technorati Tags: julie amero, sentencing

The Norwich Bulletin has obtained and made available a copy of the transcript in the Julie Amero trial. The transcripts can be obtained here [column on the right]. If I didn’t have volumes of transcripts to read for work, I’d read them immediately. However, there are several other bloggers who are reading the transcripts and have posted comments:

• Crime and Federalism
• Odd Time Signatures

Technorati Tags: julie amero, transcripts

Julie Amero’s defense counsel has requested that the March 2nd sentencing be postponed. Attorney John Cocheo has enlisted the help of famed New Haven attorney William Dow to aid in sentencing.

A formal request for a postponement will be submitted to Judge Hillary Strackbein, he said, to allow Dow time to become familiar with the case. He expects a response by next week.

More on this as a motion is actually filed and a decision is issued. As criminal attorneys know, this sort of thing is not normal, but continuances are often requested and granted.

While everyone waits for this to unfold, read this report from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use entitled The Julie Amero Tragedy [.pdf] It is pretty in-depth and well researched and written. If I have any quibbles with it, I will post them later.

Technorati Tags: julie amero, connecticut

Update: In light of the comments, here is the relevant excerpt of the Model Jury Instruction for 53-21:

To find the defendant guilty of wilfully or unlawfully causing  or permitting any child under sixteen years to be placed in such  a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the  health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such  child are likely to be impaired, the state must prove the following  elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that at the time of the  incident, the alleged victim was under the age of sixteen years;  and (2) that the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted  the victim to be placed in a situation that endangered the  child’s life or limb, or was likely to injure his health or impair  his morals.

The conduct to be punished must involve a child under the  age of sixteen years. The statute also requires wilfulness or  unlawfulness in causing or permitting the child to be placed in  a situation that his life or limb is endangered, or his health is  likely to be injured, or his morals are likely to be impaired. This  is the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to,  acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child’s moral  or physical welfare.

”Wilfully” means intentionally or deliberately. ”Unlawfully”  means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting  a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires  conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits  that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or  right of control over the child that the defendant might have  reasonably prevented it.

Also factoring into the equation are the exact terms of the jury instruction given by the judge in Amero’s case.

Several national news organizations are carrying stories today about the case of Julie Amero [previous commentary here]. Here is a video of an MSNBC news report on this case with their version of Nancy Grace: Susan Filan.

There is even a blog supporting Amero’s cause. Her sentencing is scheduled for March 2nd, but as can be seen from the blog, they’re already discussing appeals.

What interested me is a comment on this website where a poster mentions an article that stated the Risk of Injury statute doesn’t require mens rea. Let’s look at the statute:

Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale  of children.(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child  under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of  such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals  of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or  morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section  53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years  of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner  likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal  or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money  or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of  a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or  other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection  with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be  guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and  a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection.

As you can see, it is under subsection (1) that she has to be convicted. Now, the question is, does this statute require intent? Obviously. The real question is whether it is a specific intent crime or a general intent crime. A quick search on Lexis brings up State v. Sorabella, 277 Conn. 155. The pertinent quote from that decision:

As this court previously has observed, that offense is a general intent crime. E.g., State v. McClary, 207 Conn. 233, 240, 541 A.2d 96 (1988)State v. Reid, 85 Conn. App. 802, 809-10, 858 A.2d 892, cert. denied, 272 Conn. 908, 863 A.2d 702 (2004). Thus, "it is not necessary, to support a conviction under § 53-21, that the [accused] be aware that his conduct is likely to impact a child younger than the age of sixteen years. Specific intent is not a necessary requirement of the statute. Rather, the intent to do some act coupled with a reckless disregard of the consequences . . . of that act is sufficient to [establish] a violation of the statute." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davila, 75 Conn. App. 432, 438, 816 A.2d 673, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 909, 826 A.2d 180 (2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 897, 125 S. Ct. 92, 160 L. Ed. 2d 166 (2004). For the same reasons that we have rejected the defendant’s contention that sexual assault in the second degree, which also is a general intent crime, cannot be the subject of an attempt; see part I A of this opinion; we also reject the defendant’s assertion that risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (1) cannot be the subject of an attempt.

So it is not a specific intent crime; this does not mean that it is a per se crime. There still needs to be mens rea. The mens rea, however, is that there is a disregard for the outcome of the action. Do her acts fulfill this requirement? Based on the facts, I think not. The appellate court will have to decide.

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