Julie Amero is scheduled to be sentenced today at 10AM EDT in New London, CT. But as I reported earlier today, her lawyers have filed a last-minute motion for a new trial. Here are some more details about the motion:

In addition to William Dow, III, the motion was filed with three other lawyers: Richard Emanuel (click his name to see an interesting quote from him — the second one down), Timothy H. Everett(law professor at the UConn School of Law) and Todd D. Fernow (law professor and director of the Criminal Law Clinic at UConn School of Law).

According to the Norwich Bulletin article, the judge is expected to rule on the motion before sentencing. If she denies it, I assume the attorneys will move on to the appellate court and Julie will be sentenced with some sort of stay pending appeal. If she grants it, it could be interesting…would the prosecutors even think about trying this case again?

Here’s an excerpt from the motion:

“The state and the defense now possess additional forensic evidence concerning the history of the computer’s use both before and after the alleged incident,” Dow wrote in his motion. “Had that information been available to the state at the time of the trial, the state … would not have urged the jury to reach certain inaccurate conclusions regarding … the alleged purposeful access to offensive Web sites. In the interests of justice, the jury’s verdict must be set aside.”

Herb Horner, the expert who was not allowed to testify about porn storms at the trial, expects for the verdict to be thrown out altogether. I agree with him — it should be. But there’s face-saving and political gains and losses at stake for the prosecutor and police…and from everything I read, it’s very unusual for the trial court to grant these motions. In this case, however, NOT granting the motion could be even more politically disastrous for the judge, given the obvious error made in not allowing evidence of malware and porn storms to be introduced by the defense. After all, if it was a slam-dunk for the majority of people who hear about this case, then the only conclusion that can be made about the judge’s ruling is that she was ignorant or intentionally conspired to keep evidence that could exonerate Julie away from the jury.

I really hope tomorrow is an end to things.

Just up in the Norwich Bulletin:

Amero’s attorney, William Dow III, based today’s motion for a new trial on “evidence discovered after the verdicts and now in possession of the state and the defense.” In light of the new evidence, Dow said the jury reached inaccurate conclusions about Amero’s alleged Web surfing.

Judge Hillary Strackbein is expected to rule on the motion prior to sentencing.

Now, if the Judge has been paying attention and reads the motion carefully, she should grant the motion for a new trial right now, opening the door for the prosecutor to then do the right thing.

More as I find it…

Update here

About the time I think I’ve written everything I can possibly write about Julie Amero, something else comes up. This latest postponement of her sentencing date has created opportunities for some very interesting articles and interviews.

Rick Green of the Hartford Courant has an excellent column today summarizing possibilities for the ongoing delays. He writes:

Then, a few weeks ago, as Amero faced sentencing, Assistant State’s Attorney David J. Smith filed a startling motion in Superior Court:

“The state has not completed a full examination of all the issues which may affect its position at the sentence hearing.”

Translation: We were wrong. We are trying to figure a CYA way out of this mess.

They still are. Amero’s sentencing Thursday was delayed again until June 6 - the fourth postponement since March. She’s still convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, facing a potential 40 years in jail.

He also did an interview with WTIC News/Talk this morning about possible reasons for the .

As I was listening to the podcast, I was overcome with one thought: Why is it so wrong to just do the right thing? IF the prosecutor went to court and simply said “The verdict should be vacated because evidence exonerating Julie Amero has come to light”, wouldn’t that resolve it? IF the defense attorney said “I was wrong — I didn’t represent her properly when I failed to turn over the expert’s reports to the prosecutor”, wouldn’t that carry weight? If the so-called expert Mark Lounsbury backed down from his false contention that she actually had to click links to arrive at those sites and admitted it, wouldn’t that make a difference?

Our society doesn’t reward elected officials for doing the right thing — it flogs them. We applaud officials for ‘protecting the children’, for ‘putting away the bad guys’, for ‘keeping our streets and schools safe’, but we do not applaud them for stepping up and taking moral responsibility for what they’ve done wrong. As a result, we have a situation where one person is wrongfully convicted, the one truly responsible for the situation has been shielded from blame (the Norwich Schools IT administrator, Robert Hartz), everyone is trying to dodge responsibility and no justice has been done at all.

Perhaps it’s time for us to start encouraging behavior from our officials that includes accepting responsibility for mistakes. As humans, we all make them. Why shouldn’t we applaud when a prosecutor steps up and says “Yes, a wrong needs to be made right, my mistake needs to be corrected.”? They should not have to fear “flip-flopper” and “Swiftboating” ads in their next campaign because they did the right thing, and they should be given the space by their constituents to make mistakes and correct them.

As Rick Green points out in the interview, the prosecutors, police and school district are now in a lose-lose situation. Admitting they had less than a full understanding of the technology leaves them vulnerable to public scorn. Not admitting it means Julie Amero continues to wear the scarlet letter. The school certainly isn’t going to admit their role in this because they don’t want any lawsuits, yet that is EXACTLY where the true blame and criticism should be placed.

What a mess.

Technorati Tags: Rick Green, Hartford Courant, Julie Amero

Julie Amero was supposed to be sentenced on Friday, but it has been postponed for the fourth time to June 6th, according to the Norwich Bulletin. According to the article, it’s unclear who requested the change, but I can only hope that the continued requests for delays means that her new defense lawyer is working hard to turn this case around.

To read more background on her case, visit the archives.

Update: One item of interest popped out at me from the Norwich Bulletin article — the venue has been changed to New London. The NB speculates that it may be related to the addition of a new judge, but I wonder if there’s another, more optimistic reason.

Technorati Tags: julie amero, connecticut, legal, justice

Julie Amero’s sentencing has been pushed back again, this time to May 18th. There’s no explanation for the delay at all; in fact, if it hadn’t come up on my Google Alert I wouldn’t have had a clue. It was supposed to have been this Thursday.

The paranoid part of me wonders if the delays are to push the case past the spotlight so that there isn’t another uproar when it finally happens. The optimist in me wonders if there’s progress being made to reverse this travesty of justice before the justice train completely derails in Connecticut.

If I find anything that indicates why another delay is sought, I’ll post it here.

Hartford Courant reporter Rick Green:   Julie Amero’s sentencing has been delayed, this time at the request of the prosecutors.

No reason for the delay was filed with the clerk at Norwich Superior Court. State’s Attorney Michael Regan, who is now involved in the case, declined to comment. Amero’s lawyers also did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

I hope this means that there is some behind-the-scenes work taking place to show the prosecutors the error of their ways.

Technorati Tags: Rick Green, Hartford Courant

Journalist Rick Green wrote an excellent feature article for the Hartford Courant yesterday. He walks the reader through events outlined in court testimony in narrative form in a fair and balanced way. The most interesting and newsy part is at the end, where he writes:

But Kane, Smith and others connected to the case have been deluged - and widely ridiculed - by computer security experts who say critical evidence was not considered and officials are now searching for ways to avoid Thursday’s sentencing. The state’s attorney’s office in Norwich is reconsidering its aggressive prosecution of Amero, sources close to the case say.

Smith, whose persuasive arguments convinced the jury of Amero’s guilt, would say only that before next Thursday, things “could very well change.”

To Kane, Smith and others: There is a way to avoid Thursday’s sentencing. Simply go into court and tell the judge that you were wrong. Tell the judge that you’ve received new information that proves Amero innocent and request that the verdict be vacated. Do the right thing.

Meanwhile, Nancy Willard has updated her report (PDF) on the Amero case to reflect the court transcripts and testimony published by the Norwich Bulletin.

Finally, commenter lilaw is calling for anyone who can to show up at the courthouse on March 29th in support of Julie Amero.

Most of mainstream America gets its information from television and the print media. And that media publicizes the news that sells commercial airtime or print advertisements. Let’s provide them with something to publicize. At least, let’s let Norwich know that we are watching. (I think that peaceful protest and freedom of assembly and association are still permitted there.) Let’s let Julie know that we support her. I do not live in Connecticut. It will take me at least three hours to get there, but I will be in Norwich on Julie’s sentencing date, now scheduled for March 29, 2007. Please get up from your computer and join me. You computer geeks (a term I use with respect) who are far more blog-savvy than I, please get the word out. While I would like to be in the courtroom to observe the proceedings on March 29th, nothing would please me more than to find that the place is so crowded with Julie’s supporters that I can’t get in. By the way, I am not some left-wing radical. I am now a moderate, middle-aged part of mainstream America. I am outraged. I am also an attorney. I am alarmed. And ashamed.

I wish I could be there with you, lilaw. It’s just on the wrong coast for me to make it. But I’m there in spirit and with full-tilt blogging mode turned on. If any of you are on the east coast and can join lilaw to stand for what’s right (assuming that there isn’t some sort of resolution that brings this to an end to Julie’s benefit), please do.

Here’s an aside to Stowe Boyd: The links in this post prove that local newspapers are NOT dead, cannot die, and should not be allowed to die. Mathew Ingram said it best: The news is not dying. I do, however, agree with Robert Scoble about America’s fixation with celebrity non-news, which should be permitted to die a graceless and rapid death.

On the other hand, having Rumsfeld as a guest editor for the LA Times would have been a travesty. Glad to see that one nipped in the bud before it blossomed.

Technorati Tags: hartford courant, newspapers, local news, journalism

Yesterday the Norwich Bulletin published an editorial about the Amero case. In a backhanded way they called for some responsibility to fall on Robert Hartz’ shoulders (Robert Hartz was the district IT administrator):

However, Amero is not the only one to blame. Pornographic sites should never have been able to appear on that school computer. The fact the school’s protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district. Whoever did not do their job to ensure the proper fees were paid and the licensing was up-to-date deserves to be fired.

However, the gist of their editorial is that Julie Amero, and Julie Amero alone should bear the criminal responsibility for the appearance of porn on the computer. The double standard in that stance is the first river of dishonesty, but it doesn’t end there. Obviously the authors of the editorial didn’t bother to read the transcripts they published for the benefit of all to read, because they say this:

She even discussed the problem with students. Amero never went to the main office and did not discuss the issue with the principal until the next day, when she was questioned.

River of Lies #1: There was no testimony that Amero discussed this with students (beyond booting 2 of them off the computer before the popups appeared), but there WAS testimony that she had: a) gone to the teacher’s lounge to seek help; b) reported the incident to the vice principal the very same day it happened; and c) discussed it with the principal the following day.

Then there is this interesting spin on the case, offered with no facts to support the contention:

It’s an unlikely sentence, even though children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero’s watch.

River of Lies #2: By wording this to suggest that the children ‘were exposed to six hours’ of porn, the Bulletin twists the facts and ignores Amero’s efforts to physically place herself between the students and the monitor, her efforts to close the windows, etc. This single statement proves the ingrained bias of the editorial board. My first instinct when reading this was that this was an editorial written by the prosecutor! I was amazed to discover that the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin authored it.

As if that spin weren’t enough, they offer this indictment of the experts who have risen to Amero’s defense:

Amero has many supporters, which should not sway the court, as most of them have formed opinions based on limited knowledge of the facts of the case, or simple hearsay. At the heart of this international debate is whether Amero was responsible for causing the pornography to be on the computer screen for an entire school day…

River of Lies #3: The experts and supporters of Julie Amero have read the transcripts (evidently much more thoroughly than the NB did), examined a mirror copy of the hard drive of the computer in question, and donated their time and talent to Julie Amero because the verdict is just wrong. The ones operating on simple hearsay with no facts before them are the editorial board of the Norwich Bulletin.

Now, newspapers are entitled to print editorials as pure opinion, but it’s a pretty sad day when the opinion isn’t based upon the facts of the case. In a day and age where we are fortunate enough to have primary source documents available via electronic access, there is no excuse for the PUBLISHER of those documents to ignore them and spin the facts to support their opinion with no foundation or effort at intellectual honesty.

As I mulled over what possible reason they’d have for revving up the tar-and-feather engine 2 weeks ahead of sentencing again, it occurred to me that perhaps their page views had fallen off since they published the transcripts and they viewed this as a way to bump traffic and revenue again.
The Norwich Bulletin advertisers should seriously consider whether advertising on this site works to their benefit. I’m seriously tempted to suggest an advertiser boycott for this incredible excuse for a rag of a newspaper.

Alex Kantor has some more enlightenment for them on his blog, too.

My suggestion to Connecticut newspaper subscribers: Switch to the Hartford Courant. At least their reporters make the time to actually check their facts with primary sources.

Technorati Tags: Norwich Bulletin, journalism, reporting, editorials, ethics, law