One of the strangest cases in years is now over in Connecticut, but the resolution is hardly satisfying. Connecticut substitute teacher, Julie Amero, 41, pleaded guilty plea to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge and agreed to pay a $100 fine as well as surrender her credentials to teach in the state of Connecticut. The case seems a troubling example of prosecutorial over-zealousness and computer illiteracy.
This four-year case began in October 2004 with what appear a glitch in software during a class of seventh-graders at the Kelly Middle School in Norwich, CT . Amero was teaching her middle school students when the class computer starting spewing out porn site links. Parents complained. Instead of looking at the sufficiency of their firewalls, the school called the police. There was never any proof that the school had serious anti-malware protections on Amero’s computer. Amero had been instructed never to shut it off.
However, Prosecutor David Smith and Norwich, Conn. police detective Mike Lounsbury ran a perfunctory test and then pushed hard for conviction for creating a risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. It was a high profile case and Smith and Lounsbury never seemed to question this initial conclusion that Amero must have intentionally accessed the sites.
They would not back down on that view despite an array of computer experts who denounced their test and theory as ridiculous. Sunbelt Software CEO Alex Eckelberry weighed in on Amero’s side.
YetJan. 5, 2007, a Norwich jury found Amero guilty of four felony counts of “injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children” and faced a maximum of forty years in prison. This conviction was all but guaranteed when Smith succeeded in barring the defense from presenting expert testimony on how pop-ups work. (He argued that he was unaware that the defense might present a malware defense, which would seem the only obvious defense in the case. Defense counsel may have messed up on this point, but the denial of virtually all such evidence was fatal blow). This left the trial to the prosecution’s expert. You guessed it; Lounsbury. So Herb Horner of the consulting firm Contemporary Computing Consultants and a lifetime IT expert (as well as other experts) were largely barred while the prosecutor relied on a detective who took a two-week course on computer security.
With the judge’s ruling, Smith was able to shape the case according to his highly questionable knowledge of how computers and software work: At one point, he stated in court: “When you link on a link, again, links are Javascripted, you click on a link, it changes color…”
Eckelberry spoke to Smith to try to get him to see reason, but observed: “I talked to David Smith. I think he really believes that [Amero] is a lesbian. Lounsbury really does; in his world, she was sitting there fondling herself in front of the students.” Amero is married and was pregnant at the time after years of trying to have a baby, which she lost after her arrest in a miscarriage.
Experts found that the machine was running an anti-virus program that had been discontinued by the company about six months earlier. In addition, the clock on the machine was incorrectly set, so there was not way to determining critical events beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eventually, Judge Hillary Strackbein this morning granted a motion for a new trial for Julie Amero based on the flawed evidence related to the computer-related testimony. Smith still pushed for punishment, however.
The eventual settlement is obviously much better than forty years. However, the good people of Norwich need to look closely at the people who they are hiring to investigate and prosecute citizens. Indeed, there is room to examine the school officials who converted this into a criminal case without proper investigation. Putting aside the money and time that Smith wasted on this case, there is an obvious lack of judgment and safeguards in this prosecution office.
Everyone in authority seems to have failed in this case. First there were the school officials who maintained antiquated computer software and then treated this routine glitch as a criminal matter. Second, there is the investigator Lounsbury who seemed all too eager to conclude that this was a teacher lacking morals rather than a computer lacking a firewall. Then there was Smith who seemed caught up in a high-profile case with the prospect of a high-profile victory. Then there was the judge who allowed the prosecution to deny basic evidence to the jury. Norwich has a lot to be worried about — the least of which is what its teachers are viewing on their computers.
For the expert testimony, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Buddha,
The only problem I have with what you said is that I don’t necessarily see Greed as good or bad. I will grant you that when any emotion becomes the central focus of someone’s life it’s unhealthy. I would say rather than trying to completely eliminate greed, we should be working to balance greed out with all the other things that drive humans.
In practice, your way of eliminating greed and my way of balancing greed in the Government look remarkable similar.
I was speaking of myself as ‘having been there’, at onee time. I did nothing but insurance defense work. My ex-husband was a lawyer, also.
I chose medicine over my former career
– and a surgeon…
Buddha,
I think you made a good choice. All of us have unique dispositions which it is best to honor. I used to work at a facility where people who had MRDD lived. I always admired the people who worked in direct care. That is a very difficult job, yet they did it every day with kindness, respect and professionalism. They worked together with the people who lived there to create the best life possible in a frankly shitty situation. I don’t think I could ever do that work as well as the people I met there. I’m just glad people do have different abilities and dispositions. There is room for everyone’s talents.
Thanks Patty, but I have my gratification covered. And you’re right. Practice isn’t right for me, hence my choice, but my experiences are my experiences. I’m glad you know some good ones. I’ve stated my position. I am more active than just blogging, however, before the change from within discussion gets much further I must state I do not think change from within is possible in the long term unless lobbyists go. And I do mean go, some of them as in “go to prison”. Greed is what is killing our government. Corporations are the hosts but lobbyists are the carrier of the disease. Rats with plague bearing fleas (or birds with hemorrhagic fever depending on which epidemiological analysis of the Black Plague you buy into). The Right to Petition should cost nothing. It should be a form you can mail in once you have enough verified voter signatures and the Representative should have a time limit for response or to propose a bill. Corporations should not be allowed to lobby PERIOD. Make requests, sure, but they should have no say in drafting legislation. No money (or favor) should ever change hands. Try to get an elected official to pass legislation without a lobbyist (or some media drawing tragedy like the death of a child) and see how far you get. While I did consider the route of government service or other, I came to the conclusion that it is the path of Sisyphus until the graft train is stopped (and that IS what modern lobby practice is if you are honest about it). That is a change I do not think will come from within but will be forced from without. The Senators won’t let you take their money trough away so you have to get rid of the mindset that created them. I have ways of changing peoples minds and educating them. Because memes behave like a virus and you can’t win people’s hearts unless you open their minds. Now I just need to build scale. While I realize this is also an imperfect solution I also realize the implication of Kurt Godel’s work which states that in any given system there must be something that is assumed to be true although unprovable (much to the chagrin of mathematicians and physicist everywhere). The implication being that systemic perfection is not possible. And my assumption is that since the problem is a fundamental element of the human psyche (or a Pleistocene relic), greed, the best solution is to change is to change avaricious behavior in humans or else any modifications to systems will be ultimately doomed to failure. So as I said, I fight the fight – just in my own way. One lives to be of service.
Patty,
Some people are simply computer illiterate and are ‘scared’ of doing something wrong regarding computer operations. I can understand why the teacher did not just turn the computer OFF.
^^^
Exactly. Seems like a pretty good defense to me! I think I would have focused my investigation on the ‘computer literate’ in this case
– especially with respect to that particular computer on that day.
Buddha, forgive me. A lot of what you say does not ring true as someone who has ‘been there’. I believe the daily practice of law is not for you, and also agree with mespo. ‘Change’ from within, through some sort of public service, could be most gratifying – if you can spare the time through volunteer advocacy of some sort.
I do not have the trial experience that many on this site might have, but being on the transactional side of the profession for over 25 years,I have found most of the attorneys that I have interacted with to be good people and good attorneys. There are some bad ones that I believed were not only bad people, but bad attorneys. Luckily in my experience they were in the minority. Buddha, my delayed kudo’s to you as well.
I am at a loss for words.
Thank you all for your kindness.
Buddha:
I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting those lawyers you describe don’t exist in large numbers because they do. I will suggest that there is much you can do to solve the problem by rejoining the fray. Many of the poor need our services more desperately than any Fortune 500 company, and they are effectively shut out by the economics of the profession. Legal Aid, pro bono work, and Public Defender work are just three ways to put your training to good use and find the purpose you found lacking.I never suggest another person’s path without invitation, but you seem to me a frustrated idealist donning the costume of the skeptic.
I like to think Jefferson found these same shortcomings in the colleagues of his day, but fought on–sometimes in a solitary way–to effect the vision he so clearly possessed. In one of his letters Jefferson wrote:”This world abounds indeed with misery; to lighten its burthen, we must divide it with one another….” Though we cannot relieve all the distressed, we should relieve as many as we can.” (Thomas Jefferson to Maria Copway, 1786). We could use a few more Jeffersons in our profession.
Buddha,
Abandoning one’s career based on the lack of principles and ethics exhibited by his professional colleagues is a difficult decision. I once naively assumed that the majority of people who chose to attend law school did so out of magnanimity towards ensuring a morally and legally correct society more so than for the potential monetary rewards.
Thanks.
Buddha,
You’re not the only one who’s laughing now!
FFLEO,
The general lack of quality, as in ethical practitioners in the legal field is why I quit. By quality I mean putting the integrity of the system before their balance of their checkbook. Life is too short to deal with venal assholes all day. If I had wanted that, I’d have run for Senate or gone into banking. It wasn’t dealing with clients that was shortening my life, it was dealing with the lying scumbags in the profession. 9 of 10 think of one thing and that’s money. If I never have to do business with attorneys of any sort it will be too soon. The last one I did business with was the guy I hired to handle my divorce. By in large, the profession deserves the reputation it has. Sure, I may socialize with a few still, but trusting them or be willing to do business with them are right out. Lawyers are often part of the problem . . . and Shakespeare was right. The fundamental problem is that is does require a “strong” ego to practice. The problem with that is that it’s a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Most of them are waaaaaayyyyy over that line.
That’s one of the reasons I like JT. He’s all about the the integrity of the system judging by his TV and internet output. His ego takes a backseat to justice. Kudos to him for fighting the good fight. I simply chose another path. Had I known JT then and had business dealings with him, my path may have been different, but as Sun Tzu said, “The face of victory is ever changing.” I am not just content with my choice not to practice, I am happy. I feel like my hands are finally coming clean. That does not change how I feel about the system or the ideals of Jefferson. My desire to see what is broken fixed remains as strong as ever. I will remain in the shadows – still fighting in my own way.
And if anyone is curious, no, I don’t miss the money as much as I love not going to job everyday where I am surrounded by the kind of people I loathe – the greedy and the self-centered. Because that’s what this case was about, the prosecutor’s ego.
FFLeo:
An old legal bromide is that thinking people make bad prosecution jurors. You are such a juror. Funny how some of life’s most important decisions boil down the attitude and aptitude of people we suspect function on approximately a sixth grader level. That may be an exaggeration, but consider how much so as you stand in line behind your fellow citizens at a sporting event, or in a check out line and listen to what passes for adult conversation. Such is democracy!
“I once had an overtly and completely credulous view of our entire legal system thinking that fellow officers would never lie or bear false witness against an accused citizen and that the lawyers and the judiciaries in all cases were forthright, honest, ethical, and always searched for the unmitigated facts. After all, we all took ‘oaths of office’ pledging to uphold the law in an ethical and impartial manner (with variances in the exact phrasing of our pledges). I lived with a false sense of reality and trust in our legal system throughout over 5 decades of my life while always yielding deference to those employed in what I considered one of–if not *the*–most honorable professions.”
************
Unfortunately, lawyers were people before they became lawyers, and they come with all that entails.
Mespo,
I appreciated your prompt reply and your explanations.
I am often excluded from jury trials by the defense team because of my past LEO duties, especially in drug cases. However, I served on a grand jury and I argued with the other jurors over several potential indictments because the one-sided prosecutorial evidence was frequently ridiculous. The other jurors retorted that the prosecutor surely would never lie to us or misrepresent the facts in a potential case. I rebutted that indicting someone is all that is necessary to ruin their reputation, livelihood, and lives. In addition, if the indicted are eventually found completely innocent, the “vindication,” if noted at all, is posted on the last page of the local newspaper—or within the classifieds–and the damage is often permanent. Fortunately, in the most egregious possible grand jury indictment during my jury service, the other grand jurors agreed with me and an indictment did not occur in that case. However, I saw other indictments that went forward with which I strongly disagreed, but I was ‘out voted’ and overruled.
I once had an overtly and completely credulous view of our entire legal system thinking that fellow officers would never lie or bear false witness against an accused citizen and that the lawyers and the judiciaries in all cases were forthright, honest, ethical, and always searched for the unmitigated facts. After all, we all took ‘oaths of office’ pledging to uphold the law in an ethical and impartial manner (with variances in the exact phrasing of our pledges). I lived with a false sense of reality and trust in our legal system throughout over 5 decades of my life while always yielding deference to those employed in what I considered one of–if not *the*–most honorable professions.
I would certainly appreciate replies from other attorneys.
Patty,
Some people are simply computer illiterate and are ‘scared’ of doing something wrong regarding computer operations. I can understand why the teacher did not just turn the computer OFF.
Mercury Retrograde strikes again!
——
Mercury Retrograde Phases 2004
April 7, 2004 – May 1, 2004 – Aries/Taurus
***August 11, 2004 – September 3, 2004 – Leo/Virgo
December 1 – December 21, 2004 – Sagittarius
‘…Here are just a few of the red flags Horner discovered in course of his laborious forensic reconstruction: Anti-virus software triggered security alerts as soon as he started copying the hard disk for testing. The computer’s Norton activity log showed that by the time Amero came to Kelly, her computer was already infected with spyware from notorious websites including marketscore.com and new.net.
***One piece of spyware had been already been tracking the computer for about a month…’
____
I feel badly for this woman, but why didn’t she just shut the damn thing off? Maybe that’s just me and my response to authority and orders that make no sense in the bigger scheme of things.
Seriously, if the system didn’t have ‘a back up’ or some way to reboot, screw ’em…. What if the power goes off?
FFLeo:
Unfortunately, you are in the murky world of prosecutorial discretion. Here constitutional officers (like prosecutors) and their ancillaries enjoy near unfettered discretion in who and what to charge in criminal matters. The theory always has been to permit the prosecutor wide latitude in the hopes that he would fulfill his ethical duty not merely to convict but to seek substantial justice. The Grand Jury and the trial judge were deemed safeguards on any abuse. (I wonder how effective these really are with Judges who won’t allow technical evidence in a technical case, and Grand Jurors who, as has been said many times, will indict a “ham sandwich” since only one side of the case is presented to them.) This theory worked reasonably well until relatively recently with the advent of, for lack of better term, TV lawyering, where prosecutors (and defense attorneys) with professional or political ambitions seem all too willing to take and publicly litigate high profile or lurid cases in the hopes of personal advantage. This is a black-eye on the profession, but there will always be ambitious men and women willing to step on or over someone to get what they selfishly desire. That is why I personally am against cameras in the courtroom since it turns serious proceedings into a reality show. I give you Chris Darden and Marsha Clark as just two contestants from this genre of lawyering. I am optimistic a new trial will clear this apparently innocent woman, but as usual, a good lawyer will have to be involved to make the system work as intended. And there are plenty of good lawyers who fight the good fight for little or no pay. I suspect our host is one, and there are others who curiously elude the focus of the John Stossel’s of the media world. Funny how that happens when they can always find an obscure plumbers helper to promote a presidential candidate.
To the lawyers on this forum:
Isn’t there some legal method of holding Mr. Smith and detective Lounsbury accountable for their misdeeds in this case?
What about the ABA? Do they want such incompetence, dishonesty, legal misconduct, and ignorance to prevail in the legal profession?
Why wouldn’t the ABA be chomping at the bit to set the record straight in such a terrible display of injustice?
Does the ABA even have code of ethics violation standards with which they can use to *censure* Mr. Smith? Is there an ethics board that reviews such miscarriages of justice?
If I were a lawyer who deeply cared about my profession, ensuring justice in cases such as this would be my mission in life while employing all the legal tour de force I could muster.
I thought I had heard something about schools and porn and went to look it up. I found the following: “In 2000, Congress also passed a law requiring schools and libraries to block porn using software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.” Doesn’t this make the school responsible?
This is appalling. To piggyback on what Mike said in his post on the “acid drop punishment”, do we just want to convict people or do we want to know what really happened? There’s something evil about desiring to convict someone, anyone, to say a conviction was made. What is ethical or just about doing this?
Can she sue for malicious prosecution or file a civil suit against the school for damages to her career and health? I’ve typed in all kinds of topics only to get something porn related. I’m certain that has happened to many people. Of course, she should have known that typing in “new hairstyles” was bound to bring up porno! What else would you type that in for?
It sounds like there might have been influential people who had a vendetta against this woman.