Prosecutors did not oppose the defense motion for a new trial for Julie Amero, 40, who had faced up to 40 years in prison after her January conviction. Prosecutors had argued that Amero visited the sites, then failed to shield children from seeing the images.

The computer was sent to a state laboratory after the trial, and the judge said Wednesday that those findings may contradict evidence presented by the state computer expert.

"The jury may have relied, at least in part, on that faulty information," said Judge Hillary B. Strackbein, who granted the request for a new trial.

Amero has adamantly denied clicking on pornographic Web sites that appeared on her classroom's computer screen in October 2004 while she was teaching seventh-graders at Kelly Middle School in Norwich.

Some technology experts believe unseen spyware and adware programs might have generated the pop-up ads for pornographic Web sites. Amero and her supporters say the old computer, which she was ordered to leave on, lacked firewall or antispyware protections to prevent inappropriate pop-ups.

Several students testified that they saw pictures of naked men and women, including at least one image of a couple having oral sex.

Amero was to have been sentenced Wednesday but instead pleaded not guilty to the same charges, four counts of risk of injury to a minor. A date for the new trial has not been set.

"I had a great team behind me and I feel comfortable with the decision today," she said after the hearing.

Her attorney, William F. Dow, commended prosecutors, saying they acted responsibly.

"The lesson from this is all of us are subject to the whims of these computers," he said after the hearing.

A new trial date has not yet been set.

Background ...

Professors Urge Independent Investigation in Teacher Porn Case

AP, 3/6/07 - Nearly 30 Connecticut computer science professors have signed a letter urging an independent investigation in the case of a Norwich substitute teacher convicted of exposing her students to pornography on a classroom computer.

The professors, from eight Connecticut colleges and universities, took out an ad in Tuesday's Hartford Courant on behalf of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old Windham resident with no prior criminal record.

Amero was convicted in January of four counts of risk of injury to a minor and faces up to 40 years in prison when she is sentenced March 29.

While prosecutors insist she is guilty, some experts believe that the lewd images were caused by unseen spyware and adware programs, which critics call one of the top scourges of the Internet.

Amero, who claims to have little experience with computers, has become a cause celebre for technology experts around the country who say she is the victim of a miscarriage of justice that could happen to anyone.

"The Julie Amero case has created outrage in Internet forums and among computer experts all over the country," the professors wrote in their ad, which was titled "An Open Letter to Chief State's Attorney Kevin T. Kane."

The 28 professors who signed the letter advocate a suggestion from Mark Rasch, former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice cyber crime unit, that an independent investigator be brought in to look at the case.

Kane's office declined comment Tuesday.

The case started in October 2004, when Amero was assigned to a class of seventh-graders, a few of whom had been looking at a Web site on hair styles. Amero says that after class started, pornographic images started popping up on the computer screen by themselves and she could not stop them. She says she was under strict orders to leave the computer on.

Prosecutors say Amero clicked on to graphic Web sites and failed to prevent children from seeing pornography. Amero says she did not click on the Web pages and that inappropriate images were from adware, which can generate pop-up ads.

Amero and her supporters say the old computer lacked firewall or antispyware protections to prevent inappropriate pop-ups.

Teacher Convicted of Exposing Students to Porn

AP, 2/16/07 - Until recently, Julie Amero says, she lived the quiet life of a small-town substitute teacher, with little knowledge of computers and even less about porn.

Now she is in the middle of a criminal case that hinges on the intricacies of both, and it could put her behind bars for up to 40 years.

She was convicted last month of exposing seventh-grade students to pornography on her classroom computer. She contended the images were inadvertently thrust onto the screen by pornographers' unseen spyware and adware programs.

Prosecutors dispute that. But her argument has made her a cause celebre among some technology experts, who say what happened to her could happen to anyone.

"I'm scared," the 40-year-old Amero said. "I'm just beside myself over something I didn't do."

It all began in October 2004. Amero was assigned to a class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, a city of around 37,000 people.

Amero says that before her class started, a teacher allowed her to e-mail her husband. She says she used the computer and went to the bathroom, returning to find the permanent teacher gone and two students viewing a Web site on hairstyles.

Amero says she chased the students away and started class. But later, she says, pornographic images started popping up on the computer screen by themselves. She says she tried to click the images off, but they kept returning, and she was under strict orders not to shut the computer off.

Prosecutor David Smith contended at Amero's three-day trial that she actually clicked on graphic Web sites.

Several students testified that they saw pictures of naked men and women, including at least one image of a couple having oral sex.

Computer consultant Herb Horner testified for the defense that the children had gone to an innocent Web site on hairstyles and were redirected to another hairstyle site that had pornographic links. "It can happen to anybody," Horner said.

The defense argued that the images were caused by adware and spyware -- programs that are often secretly planted on computers by Internet businesses to track users' browsing habits. They can generate pop-up ads -- in some cases, pornographic ones.

"It's absolutely plausible," Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said of Amero's case. "It's a huge problem."

But many remain skeptical, including Mark Steinmetz, who served on Amero's jury.

"So many kids noticed this going on," Steinmetz said. "It was truly uncalled for. I would not want my child in her classroom. All she had to do was throw a coat over it or unplug it. We figured even if there were pop-ups, would you sit there?"

Amero and her supporters say the old computer lacked firewall or anti-spyware protections to prevent inappropriate pop-ups.

"What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware -- an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene," Alex Eckelberry, president of a Florida software company, wrote recently in the local newspaper. "When a pop-up occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site, and no 'physical click' is necessary."

Smith, the prosecutor, would not say what he plans to recommend when Amero is sentenced March 2. John Newsone, a defense attorney in Norwich familiar with the case, said Amero might be spared prison or face perhaps a year to 18 months.

Principal Scott Fain said the computer lacked the latest firewall protection because a vendor's bill had gone unpaid. "I was shocked to see what made it through," he said.

But Fain also said Amero was the only one to report such a problem: "We've never had a problem with pop-ups before or since."

This page contains copyrighted material and is made available to better understand pornography, e.g., its effect on society. It is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.