Teacher wins retrial in porn case (faced up to 40 years for adware porn popping up)

[The Straight Story]

Teacher wins retrial in porn case

A Superior Court judge has ordered a retrial in the case against a former teacher convicted of having pornographic images on her adware infected computer.


A jury convicted Julie Amero in January on four counts of 'risk of injury to a minor' because her PC displayed pop-up ads for porn sites that could be seen by her seventh-grade students. The charges carry a maximum 40-year prison sentence.

Detective Mark Lounsbury with the local police in Norwich, Connecticut had testified that Amero had intentionally surfed to the porn website.

The defence argued that the images were served by adware and spyware applications that had infected the computer.


In overturning the previous ruling, Judge Hillary Strackbein dismissed Lounsbury's testimony as "erroneous".

"The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that false information," Judge Strackbein ruled, according to a report in local news paper Norwich Bulletin.

" is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice."

http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=53851

[DeSwiss]

1. Maybe there is still a little justice left after all....

I've followed this case from the beginning, and I hope she's acquited and then sues the BeJebus out of them. Bastards

Thanks for the update!!!

K&R :)

[eridani]

2. This ought to scare everybody

Who actually knows about all the stuff stashed away on their hard drives?

[Hippo_Tron]

3. 40 years!!!!!

Even if she was doing it intentionally I can't imagine prison let alone 40 years!!! I would think that she'd just be fired and probably face a civil suit from the parents.

[William769]

4. And only 60 days for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/08/winkler.sentence.ap/index.html

Makes one wonder.

[SeattleGirl]

5. Well gosh, William, don't you realize that ANYTHING related to

sex is far worse than murder, and will be the downfall of this country if the wimmens aren't all clad in chastity belts?

And yeah, it does make one wonder. I know that there are mitigating circumstances in many cases of murder, but 40 years for pop-up porn (pardon the pun) vs. 60 days for murder????? Ikes! We have definitely fallen down the rabbit hole. :eyes:

[William769]

7. Yes we have fallen down the rabbit hole when we take the law into our own hands.

:eyes:

[ComerPerro]

11. No shit. Its sick, really

[KharmaTrain]

6. What A Crock...

There's a lot of holes to this story...questions, question, questions.

1.) If this porn adware had be installed on the computer, how did it get there? Who owned the computer and was in charge of its maintenance...including the removal of virus' and software. When I'm at a job site and using their computer they not only have the right to tell me how I can operate that computer, but have the duty to make sure its operating properly...meaning ad-ware, spyware and virus free.

2.) If this person had been downloading porn or these pop ups had been a problem, why was it turned over the cops and not handled by the school principal and/or union? Surely these images just didn't start appearing in the morning and she was cuffed and booked in the afternoon...this must have been a "problem" that had worked its way around...but this should have been a matter handled by the school...and if the teacher was downloading porn, she should have been fired immediately, why did they have to wait for the cops?

3.) What type of attorney couldn't walk into a court and explain that adware isn't porn and how easy it for this crap to get into any computer that's connected to the Internet(s). Also, that if it was a school-owned computer, why wasn't this problem recognized and repaired.

And then there the 40 year sentence? Was she selling the stuff? Was she profiting from her action? I smell a zealous local prosecutor trying to make a name for himself.

[frogcycle]

8. seems like I recall this story when it broke

parents raised hell and got the cops involved

[ComerPerro]

12. seems like our society gets so caught up in pretending to care about children

that all we can come up with are things like 40 year prison sentences for bullshit like this, because it is easier to do that and pat ourselves on the back than to actually do things that would make a meaningful difference in their lives.

[DarkTirade]

9. I wouldn't call it 'erroneous'

I'd call it grade-A bullplop.
And I'd probably add a few extra vulgar words in there that a judge wouldn't use in public.

[KittyWampus]

10. why didn't that computer have better security? Why was it set up to allow pop-ups?

[frogcycle]

14. because not everyone is perfect

it was, as I recall, her personal laptop. She may have made an error in judgement in using it in class if she was aware the popups occurred periodically. She very well may not have been technically savvy enough to deal with them. And there is always the chance it was the first time it occurred, surprising her.

[L. Coyote]

13. My students displayed XXX porn images frequently during class

inadvertently because the URL for the textbook's companion website had a one character difference with a site displaying XXX photography. Yes, the degree of injury was just astounding. It cost me several minutes of education time to teach them to close a window onto nudity.

Perhaps there is a way for lawmakers to outlaw the root of the risk of injury, genitalia! :rofl:

[Bjorn Against]

15. I hope she sues, and I hope the prosecuters are disbarred

It should have been so obvious to anyone who has ever touched a computer with internet access that not all the popups you get are things you asked to get popups for. To try to get a 40 year sentence for a woman just because the computers she used had popup ads come up is a massive abuse of power. A prosecutor who would send a person to prison for that should not have a law license. It is time to start holding prosecutors accountable when they try to get tough with people who are clearly innocent.