Back in February I blogged about the Julie Amero trial.
On June 6th her defense team's motion for a new trial was granted by the judge in the case. This means that the conviction has been set aside (overturned) and it is up to the state to try the case again or dismiss charges.
The reason given for granting a new trial were that the state's crime lab and the defense team discovered new evidence that indicated the prosecution failed to tell the truth at the original trial and that their misrepresentation of facts could have been a factor in the jury's decision.
There is almost certainly not going to be a new trial. The prosecutor has no evidence and can no longer get away with fabricating it. The state's own crime lab effectively said that the prosecutions expert witness didn't actually know what he was talking about.
I would expect the state of Connecticut to drop the charges against Amero by Friday (June 8th) unless they are trying to punish Amero for daring to stand up for justice. This isn't as far fetched as it may seem. In granting the new trial the judge criticized bloggers for demanding justice. This is understandable - the judge was instrumental in deliberately suppressing the evidence that the state crime lab "discovered."
If the prosecution, police, and judge had possessed a modest degree of computer literacy the travesty of justice would have never been pursued in the first place.
Can a Legal System Unversed in Technology Result in a Fair Trial? Not always, but vigilance by private citizens can help overturn the injustices that result from such technological ignorance.
Randy Abrams
Director of Technical Education
