Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Blog neighbor Liz Ditz sent along some information on the unjust railroading of Julie Amero. Amero was a teacher in Connecticut whose classroom computer got infected with malware that caused porn popups to come up on the screen, where students were exposed to them. Despite the fact that everyone agreed that the malware was to blame, and the fact that the school's internet filtering system wasn't working because they'd let the license expire, she was convicted and now faces up to 40 years in prison.
The case is currently being appealed and Julie and her husband have put up a blog asking for help with the legal expenses that are mounting. Here's an excellent post on FraudWar that explains the technical aspects and why Julie was likely railroaded in this case and why the prosecution's case is weak. And here's a report from the computer forensics expert who testified on Amero's behalf in the trial.
Comments
The local newspaper has a series of good articles on this. Here's one in particular that's good.
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070214/NEWS01/70214003
Be sure to read the first entry (2/17 @9:18am) of "StoryChat" at the bottom. It gives the reasons why she didn't just turn the computer off, and why the defense couldn't present the evidence from the computer that exonerated her.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 19, 2007 11:03 AM
The Register has an excellent (if longish) article on the case as well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/14/julie_amero_case/
This is the first I have heard about it and I am flabbergasted. Look at the first sites accessed by the computer on login, described by the prosecution in such a way as to imply that it was intentional:
In less than two minutes someone intentionally visists cookie.monster.com, addynamics.com, and adrevolver.com? Coupled with the fact that the computer was riddled with adware and spyware and known navigation hijackers, and that there was no functioning firewall! how can this possibly have resulted in a trial lasting more than about half an hour and ending in dismissal?
As The Register article points out, the above may not prove she wasn't intentionally surfing for porn but, along with the fact that she was in the middle of a class of seventh graders at the time, strongly suggests otherwise. Never mind reasonable doubt, this is nuts.
Posted by: Matthew Young | February 19, 2007 11:54 AM
Forgetting the fact that she is innocent, how the hell can the sentence for this be "up to 40 years". How is a child seeing a pornographic image for a second a greater crime than murder.
Posted by: Matthew | February 19, 2007 12:05 PM
Ed, thanks for bringing people's attention to this. I was horrified when I first heard she was convicted that this could happen in my state. I'm thrilled that blogs with wide readership are now trying to help this incredibly unfortunate woman. What a nightmare this must be for her.
Posted by: nicole | February 19, 2007 12:18 PM
Thanks, Ed. My blogpal DrumsNWhistles also has a roundup of how this miscarriage of justice came about:
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/02/18/julie-amero-more-info/
Posted by: Liz Ditz | February 19, 2007 12:34 PM
This is the typical problem with the advancement of technology. I'm certain a computer savvy jury would have laughed the prosecution out of court. As I'm sure the prosecution knew damn well if the computer expert testified completely it would lose. It makes me see a medevil courtroom and the townsfolk as jury screaming "Burn her, she's a witch!" .
Posted by: bones | February 19, 2007 12:40 PM
If I were a teacher in Connecticut I would quit, and I would encourage all teachers there to just walk away from their jobs. Why should they work for the schools when they could spend their best years in jail due to computer problems?
Posted by: Rufus | February 19, 2007 12:56 PM
That was the part that incensed me the most. The expert witness for the prosecution basically took a look at what sites the browser had visited, and determined that because the browser had visited porn sites at the time Amero was at the computer, then she must have done it intentionally!
Posted by: Skemono | February 19, 2007 1:38 PM
From reading the reports, it sounds like the jury convicted her not because they believed that she intentionally visited porn, but because she didn't unplug the computer or throw a blanket over it. I wonder how many of the jurors when faced with the same situation would have had a cool enough mind to find something to throw over the computer.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | February 19, 2007 1:50 PM
Reed,
She didn't unplug the computer because she was a substitute teacher, and she wouldn't be able to log back in after turning it off. Sure, she could have thrown a jacket over it (or better yet, just turn the monitor off. But if she isn't tech savvy or was panicked to go get the principal to help solve this problem, then she's not liable, just not exactly smart.
And I don't think the prosecutor wants 40 years. Even if this doesn't get overturned (like it should), I don't imagine her getting anything more than a slap on the wrist. But of course, even though she might just get probation, the criminal record would follow her around for life.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 19, 2007 2:00 PM
Even if she just gets a slap on the wrist, the conviction means she has to register as a sex offender which in many states (I don't know what the law is in CT) would subject her to rather draconian sanctions (prohibiting her from living within several blocks of a school or park, requiring her to wear a GPS ankle bracelet at her own expense of $5K-$10K/year). At the time of the "crime" she was pregnant as a result of fertility treatment; the stress of the case caused her to miscarry. I very much doubt that any fertility clinic would offer future treatment to a sex offender.
Posted by: ebohlman | February 19, 2007 6:25 PM
Apparently, she did the smart thing and got a new lawyer. Her sentencing date was pushed back until March 29. Here are the takes from the local papers here:
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270331/1002
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-rgreen0302.artmar02,0,6599658.column?coll=hc-utility-local
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 9, 2007 9:53 AM
This case still gets talked about quite frequently here in SE CT... here's another update. This one has several links, including links to the trial transcript itself on the Norwich Bulletin.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-03-16-julie-amero-update_N.htm?csp=34
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 22, 2007 11:07 AM
Julie Amero gets a new trial. Lots of info links at http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/.
Posted by: Jon Fleming | June 6, 2007 3:56 PM