State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Julie Amero)
Jump to: navigation, search
 This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. (February 2009)
State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero
Norwich Superior Court
New London superior court
Full case name State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero
Transcripts Julie Amero Trial Transcript

The controversial trial of Julie Amero has been the subject of international media coverage. Julie Amero (born 1967) is a former substitute teacher who was previously convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. On June 6, 2007 the conviction was vacated, and she was granted a new trial. Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct on November 21, 2008.

Contents

[edit] Timeline

On October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. The teacher's computer was accessed by pupils while the regular teacher, Matthew Napp, was out of the room. When Julie took charge, the computer started showing pornographic images.

On January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. Her sentencing was delayed four times after her conviction, with both the prosecution and judge not satisfied that all aspects of the case had been assessed.[1] The felony charges for which she was originally convicted carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.[2]

On June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge threw out the conviction of Amero, she was granted a new trial and entered a plea of not guilty.

On November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pled guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich.[3]. Amero will pay a US$100 charge and have her Connecticut teaching credentials revoked, according to Alex Eckelberry of Sunbelt Software.[4]

[edit] Controversy

The old computer, along with the school network, lacked firewall or anti-spyware protection to prevent inappropriate pop-ups. The school used the Symantec WebNOT filter; however, it was not licensed for software updates and so did not block newly discovered pornographic websites.[5]

Computer experts believe that spyware and malware programs hijacked the machine’s browser so that it visited pornography sites without prompting and created the computer logs that helped convict Amero.[5] According to the defense's expert witness, W. Herbert Horner, the defense at the first trial was not permitted to present prepared evidence in support of this theory.[6] On March 6, 2007, a $2,400 advertisement appeared in the Hartford Courant signed by 28 computer science professors who said that they think that Amero could not have controlled the pornographic pop-ups.[7][8] It was eventually discovered that the uncontrollable pop-ups were spawned by a Spyware program name newdotnet which had been installed on 14 October.

Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury is the "computer forensics expert" who was used by the prosecution to help convict her. Lounsbury testified that he solely relied on ComputerCop Professional for his forensic analysis. By the company’s own admission, the program is incapable of determining whether a site was visited intentionally or accidentally. Some of his testimony at the first trial can be found here http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/12/the_julie_amero_1.html#postAComment

An essay on the case by Nancy Willard (J.D.) at CSRIU[9] describes Amero going for help when she was unable to prevent images popping up. At the original trial Detective Mark Lounsbury for the prosecution testified that the computer was never checked for the presence of malware.[10]

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Amero case gets longer look". Norwich Bulletin. 2007-04-25. http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/NEWS01/704250301. Retrieved on 2007-04-25. 
  2. ^ "Does Sentencing Delay Mean a Possible Reprieve for Julie Amero?". PBS. 2007-04-25. http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/04/does_sentencing_delay_mean_a_p_1.html. Retrieved on 2007-06-07. 
  3. ^ "Amero pleads guilty". Hartford Courant. 2008-11-22. http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-julie1122.artnov22,0,5838504.story?track=rss. Retrieved on 2008-11-22. 
  4. ^ "Amero convicted". Computer World. 2007-11-21. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head. Retrieved on 2007-11-21. 
  5. ^ a b "Norwich porn a fluke, expert says". 2007-01-24. http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/NEWS01/701240317. Retrieved on 2007-06-07. 
  6. ^ "The Strange Case of Ms. Julie Amero: Commentary by Mr. Herb Horner". Network Performance Daily. 2007-01-22. http://www.networkperformancedaily.com/2007/01/the_strange_case_of_ms_julie_a_1.html. Retrieved on 2007-07-21. 
  7. ^ "Professors Defend Teacher Accused Of Exposing Students To Pornography (dead)". NBC30. 2007-03-07. http://www.nbc30.com/news/11185863/detail.html?dl=headlineclick. Retrieved on 2007-03-07.  Archive, which lacks actual video: here
  8. ^ http://blog.state-v-amero.com/2007/03/06/hartford-courant-ad--an-open-letter-to-kevin-kane.aspx. Accessed: 2008-11-17. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5cPXqZDgm)
  9. ^ "The Julie Amero Tragedy". Network Performance Daily. 2007-02-00. http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/AmeroTragedy.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-11-22. 
  10. ^ "Amero convicted". Computer World. 2007-11-21. http://www.faithandthecity.org/issues/education/articles/Questionable-conviction.shtml. Retrieved on 2007-11-21. 

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Connecticut_v._Julie_Amero"
Personal tools