When porn pop up's can land you in jail...

[Bells]

Update

A Superior Court judge has decided that Julie Amero does deserve a new trial due to the false information that was presented to the jury in the first trial, which led to her conviction.

Flawed testimony by a state expert witness led a Superior Court judge Wednesday to order a new trial for a Norwich substitute teacher accused of surfing Internet porn during class.

Judge Hillary B. Strackbein overturned the Jan. 5 conviction of Julie Amero, 40, of Windham, who was scheduled for sentencing Wednesday at New London Superior Court.

--------------------------------------------------------

The defense claims Amero's computer was inundated with adware-generated pop-up ads, contradicting the state's contention the surfing was deliberate.

Strackbein said, "The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information." She ordered a new trial "in the interest of justice."

--------------------------------------------------------

Assistant State's Attorney David Smith, who prosecuted the case, acknowledged Wednesday the "erroneous evidence," presented to jurors, based on a follow-up examination of the computer at the state police crime laboratory. He gave no indication whether the state planned to pursue the charges against Amero.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007706070374

 

[Baron Max]

Update

A Superior Court judge has decided that Julie Amero does deserve a new trial due to the false information that was presented to the jury in the first trial, which led to her conviction.

Thanks, Bells. And this is just one of many such cases/instances of how everyone here, and everywhere else for that matter, jumps to conclusions without adequate info or knowledge or skills or education.

It was a "sensationalist" post in the first place, and escalated from there. It's exactly what the news media does, except they aren't so nice as you to post an update.

Baron Max

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

40 years? wtf......... even if she showed the kids porn on purpose she shouldent get more than a year or 2 in jail. hell even if she punched the kids in the face 40 years is too much,

in england they let convicted guilty child rapists out of jail within 2-5 years, this just shows how fucked up the legal system is.

shit i only got a small sentence and jail term, and i endangered dozens of peoples lives, and stole thousands of pounds, and i walk free before im even 18.


peace.

 

[Baron Max]

40 years? wtf......... even if she showed the kids porn on purpose she shouldent get more than a year or 2 in jail. hell even if she punched the kids in the face 40 years is too much,

Well, the way the law works is by number of offenses ...the more, the merrier. The teacher didn't just show porn to one kid, she showed it to a whole bunch of kids.

It's sorta' like murder ...a guy who kills one person is a bad man, but if he killed 40 people, that's really bad, so we try him for all 40 murders. I.e., he gets 40 life terms in prison. See how much worse that is??

Baron Max

 

[nietzschefan]

Baron you are Lawful Evil.

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~aaronson/alitest/aintro.html

 

[Nasor]

Thanks, Bells. And this is just one of many such cases/instances of how everyone here, and everywhere else for that matter, jumps to conclusions without adequate info or knowledge or skills or education.

It was a "sensationalist" post in the first place, and escalated from there. It's exactly what the news media does, except they aren't so nice as you to post an update.

Baron Max

I don't understand why you're calling the original post "sensationalist". When the original post was made (4 months ago) it was completely accurate. The woman was only granted a new trial a few days ago.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

who cares if the kids saw porn anyway? and even if anybody does care 40 years is just way too much for that offence.


the law doesent mean right and wrong. the laws are still opinions. not things that are truth, and this ruling is obviously a load of shit.

peace.

 

[madanthonywayne]

who cares if the kids saw porn anyway? and even if anybody does care 40 years is just way too much for that offence.

Any jail time is too much for that "offence". How many of those kids haven't already seen porn pop ups on some other computer?

I found a stash of my dad's playboys when I was in first grade! My friends and I were quite interested in female anatomy. I eventually got busted because one guy took the centerfold home and his mom found it. When questioned, he ratted me out. I didn't do any jail time, though. In fact, my dad didn't even yell at me. I think he was more embarassed than I was.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Any jail time is too much for that "offence". How many of those kids haven't already seen porn pop ups on some other computer?

I found a stash of my dad's playboys when I was in first grade! My friends and I were quite interested in female anatomy. I eventually got busted because one guy took the centerfold home and his mom found it. When questioned, he ratted me out. I didn't do any jail time, though. In fact, my dad didn't even yell at me. I think he was more embarassed than I was.

yeah jail time is way over the top for this case, its ridiculous. yeah parents get embarassed over that kind of thing lol,


peace.

 

[Exhumed]

The judge refusing evidence from experts is screwing the justice system.

Seriously. How can a judge justify not allowing expert witnesses?

The police are also at fault for training people with dangerous incompetence in the matter. Assuming the one that testified did what he was trained to, he does not know what he is talking about but thinks he does, and to judges and juries appears to be a reliable source.

 

[Nasor]

The police are also at fault for training people with dangerous incompetence in the matter. Assuming the one that testified did what he was trained to, he does not know what he is talking about but thinks he does, and to judges and juries appears to be a reliable source.

Exactly. The police "expert" said that there was no way she could have gone to those sites unless she actually typed them in - which any 10 year old could probably have told you isn't true. As a result of his lie, she went to jail. It seems like she should be able to sue either the police or whoever they hired to train their "experts".

In any case, has anyone ever proved that children are actually harmed by looking at naked people? It seems like the lawmakers should have to provide some sort of proof that something actually harms people before they outlaw it.

 

[Enterprise-D]

In any case, has anyone ever proved that children are actually harmed by looking at naked people? It seems like the lawmakers should have to provide some sort of proof that something actually harms people before they outlaw it.

This is a good point, and probably the result of a knee-jerk reaction by conservatives still hankered down in their 19th century taboo concerns. Such people believe in the "village raising each child" approach - crap in my opinion.

On top of that, law governing ever growing and widely available media content is still something of a novelty and is entirely too dependant on attempting to draw precident from cases only marginally similar.

At any rate, this case was clear cut mistrial, and likely will result in a dismissal this second time around. Were I Ms. Amero I'd sue the school for undue mental trauma, and possibly countersue the state for malicious harassment or perhaps wrongful arrest.