John Benson dot com

On June 6, 2007 Julie Amero will be sentenced for a crime of which she has no culpability.  Since word of her conviction on charges of causing risk of injury to a minor there has been a great deal of criticism of the judicial system for failing to allow a defense expert to testify fully to the forensic analysis that he conducted of the machine in question.
The judge acted properly, limiting the testimony because it had not been shared with the prosecution in advance.  While this may seem unreasonable to those who aren’t versed in trial procedure, the practice of sharing evidence before a trial is crucial to the just administration of justice.
When the transcript of the trial is examined, much more disturbing facts come to light which highlight a lack of understanding of the core issues by both the local media and the attorneys involved.  The case highlights what can happen when attorneys lack a fundamental understanding of the facts and juries come to their own conclusions as a result.
The Defense Expert Was Allowed to Give His Conclusion
Much of the uproar from the security community has centered around the idea that the defense witness, Mr. Horner, was not allowed to testify fully.  While it is true that his presentation which would have shown the websites that infected the machine with malware was kept out, his testimony regarding his conclusions was not.
Mr. Horner’s testimony was unequivocal in stating to the jury that an individual looking for one thing, could end up having pornography appear on the computer (Trial Transcript pp208 lines 16-19) 

Mr. Cocheo:  ”If a novice person such as myself were to be on the computer looking for hairstyles, they could wind up in a pornographic site?”Mr. Horner:  ”Yes, you could, absolutely”The most fascinating exchange comes during the recross by the prosecutor.  Keep in mind that cross examinations are idealy conducted with a series of leading questions where the witness has no option but to answer yes or no.  Mr. Smith throws traditional trial advocacy techniques to the wind and the following was said in court (Trial Transcript pp228-229):Mr. Smith:  ”I have to ask, what is your conclusion?”Mr. Horner:  ”I could have displayed it for you very clearly.”Mr. Smith:  ”What is your conclusion?  You didn’t ever state it, I don’t think.  What is your conclusion?”Mr. Horner:  ”The conclusion is (sic) because of the lack of an updated firewall, because of the lack of anti-spyware, because of the lack of anti-adware programs, this computer was subject to advanced – to the opportunity for that person to go to pornographic sites totally out of their control because there was no protection.  And if I were allowed to show my findings there were forty adware spyware programs tracking the person’s interests.” 

While it certainly have been more effective for the jury to hear Mr. Horner’s testimony in full as he prepared it his conclusions were very clearly given.  Not only were his conclusions given, they were given at the behest of the prosecutor, Mr. Smith.
Reading the testimony of Mr. Horner is extremely frustrating.  He is extremely combative with both Mr. Smith and with the court.  His attitude clearly did not sit well with the jury, and because of this they may have chosen to ignore it in full.  Sadly it appears that Mr. Horner himself through his failure to provide his testimony in advance and poor attitude that contributed greatly to Ms. Amero’s conviction.
Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse
Much has been said about what Ms. Amero should have done in this situation.  It would have been very easy to cover the screen, turn off the monitor, or unplug the computer.  Her negligence in taking further measures are completely irrelevant under the law.  The charge to the jury, as read by the judge is as follows (Trial Transcript at pp.330-332):

One, that at the time of the incident the children in question were under sixteen years old.  Two, Ms. Amero wilfully or unlawfully cased or permitted the victims to be placed in a situation that was likely to impair their morals…. 

To summarize, for the defendant to be guilty of risk of Injury to a Minor, the state must have proven beyond a reaonsble doubt, once again, that at the time of the incident the victim’s were under sixteen years old; that the defendant did act in a way likely to impair the morals of these children; the defendant had an intent to perform those acts.
The judge makes it very clear that in order to be convicted, Ms. Amero had to have acted purposefully in her actions.  Ms. Amero did not purposefully access the pornographic web sites and the fact that she could have done more to protect the children is largely irrelevant.  
The local media largely ignored this fact.  
The jury largely ignored this fact.  
One of the jurors, in an interview with the Norwich Bulletin, said, “One of the things we tried to decide is, did she do due dilligence in not exposing the kids?  Did she do what any reasonable person would have done in that situation?”
If that was the case, then the jurors were served poorly by the attorneys in explaining the standards set by the statute.  Nowhere in the statute or the jury charge is the phrase “reasonable person” used.  This statement strongly supports a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
At the end of the day, Ms. Amero’s sentence will be much lighter than the maximum 40 years she faces.  The amount of material that has been written about the case has no doubt reached the judge, and she will take the whole picture into account when handing down the verdict.  
Ms. Amero’s case underlines the desperate need for attorneys with technical expertise to become involved with cases such as this at an early stage.  Neither attorney had much business trying to help the jury find facts of which they had no understanding.  When the jury was confused, they took the law into their own hands.  It is only through strong advocacy that justice will be administered correctly.
Full Trial Transcript and Juror Interview (http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070225/NEWS01/702250334)