40 years for porn?

Young, beautiful and facile (0.00 / 0)

J/k about the beautiful part.

Since no one has seen a transcript, it is not clear what Julie Amero said in court.  However, this story repeats the basic error of assuming that if "no one else touched it," it proves that the substitute teacher was surfing porn.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 22:02:45 PM UTC

its not really an error (0.00 / 0)

However, this story repeats the basic error of assuming that if "no one else touched it," it proves that the substitute teacher was surfing porn.

that's what she was found guilty of in the trial, and frankly I don't have any reason to think its untrue (other that what I read here, which is hearsay or Amero's denial).

it IS true that the punishment does NOT fit the crime, if it is even a crime that was committed. I'm still not entirely sure sufing for porn in a public place is illegal. Its inappropriate, but is it against the law?

a reprimand or suspension would have been more than enough, or a dismissal. Jail time seems like overkill.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 22:46:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Risk of Injury statute in Connecticut is a disaster (4.00 / 3)

The law says that it is a crime to create a situation that exposes a minor to injury, psychological or physical.  Not only is it a crime, it is a felony punishable by ten years in prison.  As the law has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, an individual can be convicted of risk of injury based on evidence that the person was in possession of a narcotic in the same room as a minor even in the absence of any evidence that the minor had been able to get access to the drug or any evidence that the minor could have ingested the drug in a way that would have endangered its health.  Mere presence in the room is, apparently, enough.  (The case in which the Supreme Court inflicted this ruling on the people of Connecticut is State v. Smith, which I know provides little help in finding it.  I believe it came down in 2002.)

This ruling should give pause to anyone with dangerous chemicals (e.g., Drano) or alcohol in an unsecured cabinet who allows a visiting child into the room.

Most worrisome, though, is the power the places in the hands of prosecutors.  I'm sure the great majority of prosecutors in this state can be trusted to refrain from abusing the ability to force citizens to defend themselves against such an elastic charge.  If one or two decide to use the law as a proxy to prosecute someone whose politics they dislike, though, well, Hartford, we have a problem.

---

by: houndcat @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:07:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

check out this writeup, and see what you think (4.00 / 2)

http://www.securityf...

This is the most technical and legal examination of the case I've seen yet.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:30:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent (4.00 / 1)

The guy is on target with virtually every point.

The first I heard of the case, the issue of the undisclosed expert was central to the story.  The failure to secure and disclose appropriate expert testimony provides Amero with a very strong habeas corpus action for ineffective assistance of counsel if, somehow, the conviction stands after appeal.  In the meantime, the defendant will be a convicted felon (and Rasch is exactly right about the sex offender registration that will haunt Amero the rest of her life if the conviction stands).  If she is sentenced to prison time, she will have to pursue her habeas relief as an inmate.

Rasch cites a 1992 case for the proposition that failure to disclose an expert does not necessarily preclude the expert from testifying.  That case predates major changes in the criminal discovery rules. While the new rules allow defendants greater access to prosecutor's files, they also impose for the first time significantly stricter disclosure requirements on defendants as well. 

The court's ruling restricting Amero's expert from presenting major exculpatory evidence seems to me to be one of the more promising avenues for appeal (with the caveat that I am viewing the case from a distance and am not privy to all sorts of evidence, rulings and other information that I would need to counsel a client competently under these circumstances).  Even assuming for the sake of argument that the court was rightly concerned that the prosecution had been unfairly ambushed by the late disclosure of the expert testimony, I see no reason why the trial could not have been delayed a few weeks to allow the state time to prepare a rebuttal.  Indeed, it's even possible that the new expert testimony might convince the state that it could not prove its case.  Although I'm not familiar with the status of the court's docket at the time this case got called, I'd be shocked if there weren't dozens of other more routine cases ready for trial that the court could have heard while the state and defendant took a few weeks to see what careful examination of the technologically sophisticated evidence in this case revealed.  I hope that defense counsel requested such a continuance.  If not, Amero will have the hollow consolation of adding it to her habeas action for ineffective assistance.

I understand that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (I think that's their name) has agreed to get involved in the case.  That group focuses on the new legal issues posed by new technology.  From what I can tell, they do good work and their involvement is a positive development.  (Full disclosure/trivia time:  The head honcho of the group's litigation department is a former law school mate of mine who survived a year of rooming with Ann Coulter.  So she's tough.)

---

by: houndcat @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 00:30:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Judge said she wanted case over by end of week, as I recall (0.00 / 0)

The judge made a statement that she wanted everything wrapped up in a set period of time.  I don't know if that was a factor in not holding off for a couple of weeks to accommodate the prosecutor's review of new defense materials.

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 00:38:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd need to know when defense counsel (0.00 / 0)

knew of the expert testimony.  He or she should have known well before jury selection and, even if counsel had failed to disclose the testimony immediately, when the case got called, he or she should have disclosed the evidence at that point and moved for a continuance.

To know what to think of the judge's comment, we'd have to know more about the context.  If the defense only disclosed the evidence after trial began, counsel needs to notify his or her malpractice carrier.

---

by: houndcat @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 00:50:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

are you talking about no requirement for mens rea? (0.00 / 0)

I just read about "mens rea," or the presence of the intent to commit the crime, on another blog.  Heh, new word.

What the blog was saying was that the statute in question does not require any proof that a crime was intended to be commited, which sounds like what you're describing in the Drano situation.

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:36:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The required mens rea (0.00 / 0)

is intent to create the situation.  Not necessarily intent to create the danger to the minor.  So in State v. Smith, the intent to possess the drug in a room where an infant was present (or a place in which the defendant should have reasonably known a minor would be present) satisfied the mens rea requirement.

To take the example of an unsecured cabinet with Drano in the kitchen, for instance, intent to possess the Drano in such a place coupled with knowledge that there would be a minor there would satisfy the mens rea requirement under Connecticut law as it now stands.  Ensuring that there was an adult in the room any time that a minor was there would likely eliminate any threat of criminal liablity.  But if you don't have someone assigned either to stay in the room or to follow the minors around to make sure they don't go opening cabinets, you are likely guilty of risk of injury to a minor.

---

by: houndcat @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:47:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boy, I knew Sue Filan (0.00 / 0)

when she worked in the criminal defense unit of New Haven Legal Aid.  That's some TV makeover she got.  For one thing, she wasn't that great a lawyer, frankly, at least not so great that she should be pontificating with such certainty.  Though I'd be shocked if she turned out as noxious as Nancy Grace.  I don't think she's wrong on the law here, at least based on what little I have heard about the case.  Sounds like she's more than a bit off-base on the facts, though.

The Connecticut diversionary program to which she alludes and which would have allowed the defendant to maintain a clean record is Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR).  An application under that program would have been far from a slam-dunk even if the state didn't oppose the application (though had the state taken no position, it would have made things easier).  I wonder whether she has actual knowledge as to what the state's position would have been on an AR application.  In any event, Amero would not have needed the state's permission to apply.  Too many factors figure into a decision of whether to apply for me to draw a conclusion as to whether she should have.  Which is one reason why, perhaps, Filan is a TV analyst and I'm no longer practicing law.

---

by: houndcat @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 22:54:00 PM UTC

the pontificating is a little tough to take (0.00 / 0)

"Sue Filan reports with a confident, unmatched certitude -- that would be, a certitude unmatched in its access to and command of the facts, delivered as "news" by a reader operating in a small and neat world where pronouncements reign and their effects on real people are rarely noticed."

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:55:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good catch Scarce (0.00 / 0)

I tivo'd that clip but I erased it by mistake.

---

by: ctblogger @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 23:28:26 PM UTC

Ho-hum. Just another incomplete MSM story. (0.00 / 0)

Another sad attempt by the MSM at covering a story without really talking about the ramifications of her conviction.  These so-called experts are a real joke.  What I would like to know is if the incident took place in November 2004, how come it took over two years for it to come to a trial.  So much for a speedy trial -speedy in the sense of close to the time of the alleged incident, not the two day travesty that has resulted in this mess.  This woman has not been able to live a normal life for over two years, all the while the state is organizing this clusterfuck. 

Yet another black eye for my hometown.  Great.

---

by: snorwich @ Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:21:13 AM UTC