Teacher convicted in pop-up porn case gets new trial

[mhendo]

Previous Pit thread on the subject here.

Julie Amero, who taught at a school in Norwich CT, was convicted a few months ago for a 2004 incident in which pornographic pop-ups appeared on her classroom computer. She faced up to 40 years in jail.

Now Amero:

has been granted a new trial in light of fresh forensic information that came to light following her first trial.

<snip>

In setting aside the conviction on Wednesday, Superior Court Judge Hillary B. Strackbein ruled that the prosecution’s expert computer witness, a Norwich police detective, provided “erroneous” testimony about the classroom computer, according to an article in the Hartford Courant. She cited a forensic computer analysis conducted after the trial by the state police crime lab, which she said “contradicts testimony of the state’s computer witness.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Assistant State Attorney David Smith - who during the trial argued the evidence was “clear cut” that Amero had caused the pornography to appear on the computer - acknowledged that erroneous information concerning the computer was presented to the jury. He said the state would take no position on Amero’s motion for a new trial, an indication she will not be tried again.

[tdn]

“Oops. My bad.”

[Dewey_Finn]

I’m glad this is being re-evaluated. But the last bit of the last sentence says “an indication she will not be tried again.” So is there going to be another trial, or is she going to be let go?

[Mosier]

It’s understandable that the legal system isn’t perfect, and that no matter how we refine the judicial process, assholes like that witness can still cause a false conviction.

What’s completely unacceptable is that kids getting accidentally exposed to porno gets someone stuck in jail for up to 40 years. We CAN fix ridiculous sentences like that, and you can’t blame them on individual assholes throwing a wrench in the system.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Dewey Finn

I’m glad this is being re-evaluated. But the last bit of the last sentence says “an indication she will not be tried again.” So is there going to be another trial, or is she going to be let go?

I get the impression it’ll be something along the lines of:
Amero:“I want a new trial!”
State:“We neither oppose nor support this request.”

Meaning they express official indifference and the case is allowed to quietly evaporate on purely administrative grounds. It’s likely the easiest way to make this embarrassment go away.

[Mosier]

@Dewey Finn

I’m glad this is being re-evaluated. But the last bit of the last sentence says “an indication she will not be tried again.” So is there going to be another trial, or is she going to be let go?

It seems like he was saying the state would not try to make a case against her, which seems to me like she just gets to sign a few papers and go home.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dewey Finn

I’m glad this is being re-evaluated. But the last bit of the last sentence says “an indication she will not be tried again.” So is there going to be another trial, or is she going to be let go?

I’m a little confused by that as well, but from what I can gather from the article. The first verdict has been set aside and (I think) the prosecutor now has an option of either trying her again or dropping the charges.

[Lemur866]

It’s ridiculous that she could face 40 years, even if she had purposefully shown the kids the porn. Heck, Mark Kay Letourneau who statutorally raped one of her students didn’t get 40 years.

How can it be fair to get a higher sentence for showing kids porn than for raping them?

[Giles]

40 years is practically a life sentence. So, if you get that for showing porn to minors, what do they do for the really serious crimes, like armed robbery and murder?

[NurseCarmen]

It’s sad that she probably had to spend a lot of money defending herself from this.

Had not the judge, the prosecutors, their family, their staff, their staff’s family, the bailiff, etc. etc. ad naseum EVER accidentally go to a website with porn popups?