State of CT vs. Julie Amero - Background Information
Posted by Ryan on March 29th, 2007.
I think it would help if I started the series out with a little background information.
Julie Amero was a substitue teacher in Norwich, CT for a few years. On October 19, 2004, she was covering a class at Kelly Middle School while the teacher was taking a training course. Barely knowing anything about computers, she asked the teacher (who was in the room before class to make sure she had the lesson plans, etc.) if she could use the computer to check her AOL email. He said yes, and then left the room to go to his training course. She then left the room with the computer turned on (and logged on, because as a substitute teacher, did not have an account to log on herself), and went to the bathroom before class started.
She came back from the bathroom to find two male students using the computer and giggling. This was a teacher computer, and they were not allowed to use it. She informed them of this, and one student sat down at his desk, and the other student left the room, since it wasn’t his homeroom.
Later that day, while she was using the computer as the kids were working, she became victim to a barage of porn-related popups. Try as she might, everytime she tried to close one of them, more would open. After running for help, and being told that “popups are normal, it’s nothing to be concerned about”, she went back to the room, and tried to prevent the kids from seeing the material on the screen. At the end of the day, Amero told the principal of the incident, and was assured that she didn’t do anything wrong.
At least, until the police showed up. Amero was charged with 10 violations of CT General Statute 53-21(a)(1). This section reads (item 1 in bold):
Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children. (a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection.
(b) The act of a parent or agent leaving an infant thirty days or younger with a designated employee pursuant to section 17a-58 shall not constitute a violation of this section.
A year and a half later, the State’s Attorney handling her case has dropped six of the charges, and they go to trial on the remaining four. Key players in the case include the judge, jury, and prosecutor, all of whom are tech illiterate for the most part; a computer “expert” detective, who laters gets published on a website saying he’s not an expert, and never claimed to be; and a actual copmuter forensics expert, who never gets the chance to testify in full to the best of his ability because of a mistake in court room procedure.