Considering the Competency of Members of Court in the State of Connecticut v. Julie Amero case


Julie Amero was convicted for FOUR charges, including Risk of Injury to a Child that could have resulted in a 40-year sentence. Testimony from experts was admitted as evidence that contributed to the case against Julie Amero.


Task 0: Preparation

Learners should form pairs and exchange summaries of the case.

Task 1: Consideration, reference and discussion of digital evidence by court members.

The court ultimately decides the fate of Julie Amero, but it is important to understand the comprehension of members of the court in terms of the digital evidence being discussed and scrutinised.

The expectation is that learners should:

  1. Spend no more than 20 minutes considering how expert evidence was presented, scrutinised and discussed by members of the court.

  2. Spend no more than 10 minutes to formulate a position whether there could be grounds for appeal based on the actions of the members of court.

  3. Spend no more than 10 minutes to expand consideration of grounds formulated in Step 2 by alternative positions.

  4. Generate a supporting summary of no more than 100 words that confirms the adopted position and areas for further scrutiny.

Learners in considering the case should consider the following specific factors raised when considering expert evidence: