Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte

                                                    Provided Plea Agreement to

                                         Sheppard Hill Teacher, Amber S. Jennings

                                                  Learn more about DA John J. Conte

 

September 27, 2005

Jennings pleads guilty

2 years’ probation on obscenity charge

 By Shaun Sutner TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

WORCESTER— Amber S. Jennings, 32, a former teacher at Shepherd Hill Regional High School in Dudley, pleaded guilty yesterday to sending obscene photos, videos and electronic messages to a 16-year-old male student with whom she was having a sexual relationship.

Under an agreement with prosecutors, the Sturbridge resident will undergo two years of supervised probation for the single charge of disseminating harmful materials to a minor. She could have been sentenced to five years in jail.

The materials included images of Ms. Jennings revealing her breasts and vagina, according to Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III.

Ms. Jennings, a mother of two young girls, also was ordered to surrender her teaching license and stay away from the victim, now 18.

Two other charges she originally faced — posing a minor in a state of nudity and depicting a minor in sexual conduct — will be dropped.

Ms. Jennings could also be required to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years. Superior Court Judge Kenneth J. Fishman, who earlier this month denied a motion to dismiss charges, will rule within two weeks on a new motion from Ms. Jennings’ lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg, that would allow her to not register as a sex offender.

The prosecution is not contesting the defense move.

However, in court yesterday, the mother of the victim made an emotional plea for Ms. Jennings to be required to report to the state’s Sexual Offender Registry Board.

“She seized his manhood. She took it away from him,” she said from the witness stand. “This teacher, Amber Jennings, totally destroyed our life, my son’s life.

“This is an abuser who needs to know she’d done something wrong,” the victim’s mother continued. “She could do it again.”

The mother also charged that Ms. Jennings abused her position as a teacher and got off easy compared to the punishment a man in her position would have received.

While the mother said she and other family members opposed the plea agreement, Mr. Reilly said the victim, who did not attend the court session, had approved of the deal.

“He wishes the matter to be resolved,” Mr. Reilly said.

Sean M. Gilrein, superintendent of the Dudley-Charlton Regional School District, noted that Ms. Jennings has not worked as a teacher in the school system since she was first charged in summer 2004, and went on unpaid leave after she was indicted last February.

“Given the outcome of the criminal matter, the school district is in the process of terminating Ms. Jennings formally,” Mr. Gilrein said. “We’re certainly pleased that the criminal proceedings are over and we can all move forward in a positive fashion.”

The defendant, her blond hair pulled back, was dressed in a long-sleeved white shirt, khaki slacks and black platform shoes.

Her husband, Richard G. Jennings, sat in the courtroom.

Ms. Jennings gave mostly single-word answers to the judge signifying that she understood and agreed with the arrangement.

When Judge Fishman explained the details of registering with the sex offender registry, she lost her composure and briefly broke out in tears.

Mr. Ettenberg painted the year-and-a-half relationship between Ms. Jennings and the student as consensual, noting that she was not his teacher when they began to have sex.

The teacher and student first met during the 2002-03 school year when he was a freshman and Ms. Jennings was his English teacher.

The next school year, they began to talk together in person and by phone and send e-mails and other messages to each other, Mr. Reilly said. Starting in November 2003, they started to have sexual intercourse in various places in Dudley, Charlton and Oxford, including Ms. Jennings’ car, her house and his parents’ house.

At one point, the teenager asked Ms. Jennings to use a digital videorecorder while they had sex, and she agreed, Mr. Reilly said.

Eventually, the victim’s sister noticed that her brother was communicating frequently with the same computer screen name that Ms. Jennings used — “Redsox6606.”

She told their mother, who called Ms. Jennings. Ms. Jennings immediately denied the affair then admitted it, Mr. Reilly said. The victim’s mother reported the relationship to the Dudley police July 12, 2004.

Police confiscated both computers. State forensic experts found the photo and video images and messages on the computers.

While Ms. Jennings’ head was not visible on the videos showing her undressed, a tattoo proves that it was her, Mr. Reilly said.

Ms. Jennings’ lawyer, arguing yesterday for his client to be relieved of the responsibility of registering as a sex offender, said a detailed psychological assessment shows that “her risk for future sexual violence is very low, if not nil.”

“My client has absolutely no history,” he said. “What occurred between these two people is an extraordinary lapse of judgment.

“She did not stalk him. She did not seek him out in any kind of violent way,” Mr. Ettenberg added. “She was an outstanding teacher, dedicated to her profession, dedicated to her students.”

Judge Fishman rebuked Mr. Ettenberg when the defense lawyer argued that Ms. Jennings’ position as a teacher was irrelevant because the relationship could have started had the two been co-workers or in any other setting.

“Teachers have a very special position in our society that makes the comparison to a co-employee inappropriate,” the judge said.

Outside the courtroom, the teenager’s grandparents expressed anger at the plea agreement. They said it let Ms. Jennings off the hook.

“She should be in jail,” said the victim’s grandfather.

Contact Shaun Sutner by e-mail at ssutner@telegram.com.

September 13, 2005

Teacher sex case motion is denied - Constitutional argument rejected

 Gary V. Murray, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

WORCESTER - A judge has denied a motion to dismiss charges against a high school English teacher who allegedly had a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old former student.

Amber S. Jennings, 31, a teacher at Shepherd Hill Regional High School in Dudley, is awaiting trial in Worcester Superior Court on charges of posing a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of obscene matter to a minor. The charges stem from allegations that Ms. Jennings allowed her former student to use a digital camera to record their sexual relations and that she and the 16-year-old took revealing photographs of themselves and sent them to each other over the Internet.

A hearing was held last month on a motion filed by Ms. Jennings' lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg, seeking dismissal of the charges. Mr. Ettenberg maintained that the laws under which his client was charged were unconstitutional as applied to her because they violated her right to privacy. Mr. Ettenberg said it was "incongruous" that consensual sexual activity between his client and the 16-year-old would be lawful, but that videotaping the activity would not because the student was under 18.

Mr. Ettenberg also sought dismissal of the charges on grounds that Ms. Jennings was being selectively prosecuted.

Judge Kenneth J. Fishman denied the motion Wednesday.

In rejecting Ms. Jennings' constitutional challenge, Judge Fishman said she failed to meet her burden of showing that the laws in question were not rationally related to any legitimate government purpose. Citing case law, Judge Fishman said in his 10-page ruling that the state Legislature enacted the laws with the idea of protecting minors under the age of 18 from exploitation.

"It is clearly conceivable that the Legislature rationally determined that children under 18 years of age needed the Commonwealth's protection from sexual exploitation through print and film media, even though they are deemed mature enough at the age of 16 to engage in consensual sexual relations," the judge wrote.

Judge Fishman also rejected Ms. Jennings' "selective prosecution" argument, ruling that she failed to demonstrate "any discrimination or impropriety in the way this investigation was conducted or her prosecution."

August 12, 2005

Judge hears Jennings' request - Accused teacher wants charges dropped

Gary V. Murray, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

WORCESTER - A high school English teacher who allegedly had a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old former student asked a judge yesterday to dismiss related criminal charges against her.

Amber S. Jennings, 31, a teacher at Shepherd Hill Regional High School in Dudley, is awaiting trial in Worcester Superior Court on charges of posing a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and disseminating obscene matter to a minor. Ms. Jennings, who was placed on administrative leave from her teaching job last August, is alleged to have allowed the student to videotape their sexual activities and to have taken photographs of herself in various sexual poses and sent them to the student via e-mail.

A hearing was held yesterday on the motions, which were taken under advisement by Judge Kenneth J. Fishman.

Ms. Jennings' lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg, maintains that the statutes under which his client was charged are unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case. The second of the two motions is based on a claim of "selective prosecution."

As part of his argument yesterday in support of the dismissal of the charges, Mr. Ettenberg referred to the student's testimony before a grand jury that it was his idea to make the videotape and that he did so after asking Ms. Jennings' permission.

"And the commonwealth claims there's exploitation ...There's no way that could be exploitation. There's no crime here. The court should not make a moral judgment," Mr. Ettenberg said.

The defense lawyer said it was "incongruous" that consensual sexual activity between his client and the 16-year-old student would be lawful, but that the videotaping of that activity would not because the student was under 18.

In his argument against dismissal, Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III said simply allowing the videotaping of a person under the age of 18 involved in sexual conduct would be a violation of the law, regardless of whose idea it was.

"She was the person who was the adult," the prosecutor said.

Judge Fishman gave both lawyers until Aug. 22 to file supplemental briefs in the case.

August 10, 2005

DA defends porn charges against teacher

Gary V. Murray, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

WORCESTER - Citing state Supreme Judicial Court decisions in three Worcester cases to support their argument, prosecutors say criminal charges should stand against a Dudley teacher who allegedly engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student.

Amber S. Jennings, a 31-year-old English teacher at Shepherd Hill Regional High School in Dudley, is awaiting trial in Worcester Superior Court on charges of posing a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and disseminating obscene material to a minor. The charges relate to allegations that during the course of their relationship, Ms. Jennings allowed the student to videotape acts of sexual intercourse between them and also provided him with photographic images of herself in various stages of undress.

Ms. Jennings, who was placed on administrative leave from her teaching job last August, has filed motions asking the court to dismiss the charges against her. A hearing on the motions is scheduled tomorrow.

Prosecutors in the office of District Attorney John J. Conte filed their written opposition to the dismissal requests Monday.

Ms. Jennings' lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg, maintains in one of the two motions that the laws under which his client was charged are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to the facts of the case. Ms. Jennings contends that the statutes at issue violate her privacy rights because she could lawfully have sex with a 16-year-old, but could not legally record or photograph the consensual acts. Mr. Ettenberg described it as "a puzzling inconsistency in the law," demanding dismissal of the charges.

Prosecutors disagree. In their brief opposing the motion, Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III and Assistant District Attorney Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore maintain that even if the sexual conduct alleged was consensual, the law provides that a person under the age of 18 is incapable of consenting to the videotaping of such acts.

"Furthermore, even if the sexual conduct at issue were consensual, the defendant has no constitutional right to privacy in the recording of those acts, which has been deemed illegal by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," the prosecutors contend in their brief.

They cite the case of Commonwealth v. Judith Stowell, a Worcester case involving a woman charged with adultery who challenged the constitutionality of the law on grounds that it violated her right to privacy. In its 1983 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the constitutionality of the adultery statute, finding that there was "no fundamental personal privacy right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" that barred the prosecution of consenting adults privately committing adultery.

"Here too, there is no `fundamental personal privacy right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' barring one's prosecution for posing a child nude, and for causing a child to participate in sexual conduct for the purpose of representation or reproduction in visual material," Mr. Reilly and Ms. Lazar-Moore wrote.

The prosecutors cited SJC decisions in two other Worcester cases to support their contention that the laws in question should withstand constitutional challenges because they involve a "compelling State interest" in protecting children from exploitation.

Commonwealth v. Ronald D. Provost, a 1994 Worcester Superior Court case, involved a Catholic priest found guilty of posing a child in a state of nudity; the priest's conviction was affirmed by the state's highest court. Commonwealth v. Douglas Oakes involved a Shrewsbury man convicted of taking partially nude photos of his 14-year-old stepdaughter. The conviction was ultimately affirmed.

Ms. Jennings' second motion to dismiss raises a claim of "selective prosecution" based on the fact that she was charged, but the 16-year-old was not. In their written opposition, Mr. Reilly and Ms. Lazar-Moore said that motion should be denied because Ms. Jennings failed to present evidence raising "even a reasonable inference of impermissible discrimination" in the decision to prosecute her.

August 6, 2005

Teacher requests charges dropped - Case involves her relationship with student, 16

Gary V. Murray, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

WORCESTER - A high school English teacher who is accused of becoming involved in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old student is asking related criminal charges against her be dismissed.

Amber S. Jennings, a 31-year-old teacher at Shepherd Hill Regional High School in Dudley, is awaiting trial in Worcester Superior Court on charges of posing a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of matter harmful to minors.

The charges involve allegations that Ms. Jennings and the male student videotaped themselves with a digital camera having sexual relations and that the teacher took photographs of herself in various sexual poses and sent them to the student via e-mail, according to court documents.

Ms. Jennings, who was placed on administrative leave from her teaching job last August, was initially charged in Dudley District Court with inducing a minor to have sexual intercourse, but was not indicted on that charge when the case was presented to a grand jury.

Her lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg, has filed motions asking the court to dismiss the charges that are pending against Ms. Jennings. A hearing on the dismissal requests is scheduled for Thursday.

In one of the motions, Mr. Ettenberg maintains the statutes under which his client was charged are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to Ms. Jennings.

In a legal brief in support of the motion, Mr. Ettenberg notes that the 16-year-old "has repeatedly stated that the relationship was consensual, that he never felt any pressure from Ms. Jennings, that no threats were ever made to him and that he never felt uncomfortable about anything he did with Ms. Jennings."

The brief points out that, because the student was 16, he and Ms. Jennings could legally engage in consensual sex, but because he was under the age of 18 "they could not photograph or record that intimacy under the law..." Mr. Ettenberg described it as "a puzzling inconsistency in the law.

"The commonwealth is basically taking conduct that is otherwise legal between these two individuals - consensual conduct, intended to be private, not for sale and not disseminated to anyone other than the parties - and are making it a crime simply because of the form it has taken. This is an arbitrary decision by the state and it intrudes on the individual right to privacy," Mr. Ettenberg argued in the brief.

While acknowledging the government has an interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation, Mr. Ettenberg maintains there was "no exploitation or manipulation of a child" in the relationship between Ms. Jennings and the student.

The second motion to dismiss is based on a claim of "selective prosecution."

Mr. Ettenberg charges in the motion that the student with whom his client became romantically involved could "arguably" have been charged with offenses that included adultery, dissemination or possession of obscene matter and unnatural and lascivious acts, but was not. He said the investigation that resulted in the charges against Ms. Jennings was launched only after the 16-year-old "apparently confided in his mother" after "being questioned by her about someone he was chatting with online."

The mother called a relative through marriage who was then a Dudley police officer for advice and was told "she needed to press charges against Ms. Jennings," according to Mr. Ettenberg.

The defense lawyer maintains that the investigation should have been turned over to the state police and that the failure to prosecute the 16-year-old was "deliberate." Mr. Ettenberg further alleges in the motion that his client "is being selectively prosecuted for her alleged involvement in the relationship because this is a highly publicized case drawing significant attention to the Dudley Police Department."

Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III, who is prosecuting the case against Ms. Jennings, had not filed written opposition to the motions as of yesterday morning.

February 26, 2005

Sex charges vs. teacher changed to porno rap 

KEVIN ROTHSTEIN, Boston Herald (MA)

New charges filed against a female teacher initially accused of having an affair with a 16-year-old student don't include allegations she had sex with the youth.

Dudley school teacher Amber Jennings, 31, was arraigned Thursday in Worcester Superior Court on charges of depicting a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of material harmful to minors.

The new charges stem from indictments handed up earlier this month by a Worcester County grand jury.

Jennings was originally charged in district court with engaging a chaste minor for sexual intercourse.

"She's not charged with any kind of sexual intercourse (now)," said Jennings' lawyer Peter Ettenberg. "They're just saying they did stuff they shouldn't have."

The former Shepherd Hill Regional High School teacher pleaded not guilty and was ordered by Superior Court Judge John S. McCann to have no contact with the alleged victim or his family, said Elizabeth Stammo, spokeswoman for Worcester District Attorney John Conte.

She was released on personal recognizance and is scheduled to return to court April 8.

When Jennings was arrested in December, police said she gave the youth pornography and had sex with him during an eight-month period beginning in November 2003. 

February 25, 2005

Jennings arraigned on new charges - Teacher in student sex abuse case

Gary V. Murray, Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)

WORCESTER - Shepherd Hill Regional High School teacher Amber S. Jennings pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of depicting a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of material harmful to minors.

The allegations, which are contained in indictments returned earlier this month by a Worcester County grand jury against the 31-year-old teacher at the Dudley school, involve a 16-year-old male student as the alleged victim. Before the indictments were handed up Feb. 11, Ms. Jennings, of 110 South Shore Drive, Sturbridge, had been charged in Dudley District Court with inducing the 16-year-old to have sexual intercourse and disseminating obscene material to him.

The grand jury action moved the case to Worcester Superior Court, where Ms. Jennings was arraigned yesterday on the new charges.

Judge John S. McCann released Ms. Jennings on personal recognizance and ordered as a condition of her release that she remain 100 yards away from the alleged victim and members of his family. The judge continued the case to April 8 as requested by Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III and Ms. Jennings' lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg.

The offenses to which Ms. Jennings pleaded not guilty yesterday are alleged to have occurred on various dates from Nov. 2, 2003, to June 30, 2004. Dudley police charged Ms. Jennings in July after an investigation spurred by a complaint from a relative of the student.

Ms. Jennings was placed on administrative leave from her teaching job in August.

"I think it's an unfortunate circumstance for all concerned and we're looking forward to our day in court," Mr. Ettenberg said after the arraignment.

Mr. Ettenberg said he had advised his client not to personally comment on the case

February 25, 2005

Teacher faces 3 new charges

By Gary V. Murray Telegram & Gazette Staff

WORCESTER— Shepherd Hill Regional High School teacher Amber S. Jennings pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges of depicting a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of material harmful to minors.

The allegations, which are contained in indictments returned earlier this month by a Worcester County grand jury against the 31-year-old teacher at the Dudley school, involve a 16-year-old male student as the alleged victim. Before the indictments were handed up Feb. 11, Ms. Jennings had been charged in Dudley District Court with inducing the 16-year-old to have sexual intercourse and disseminating obscene material to him.

The grand jury action moved the case to Worcester Superior Court, where Ms. Jennings was arraigned yesterday on the new charges.

Judge John S. McCann released Ms. Jennings on personal recognizance and ordered as a condition of her release that she remain 100 yards away from the alleged victim and members of his family.

The judge continued the case to April 8 as requested by Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III and Ms. Jennings’ lawyer, Peter L. Ettenberg.

The offenses to which Ms. Jennings pleaded not guilty yesterday are alleged to have occurred on various dates from Nov. 2, 2003, to June 30, 2004.

Dudley police charged Ms. Jennings in July after an investigation spurred by a complaint from a relative of the student.

Ms. Jennings was placed on administrative leave from her teaching job in August.

“I think it’s an unfortunate circumstance for all concerned and we’re looking forward to our day in court,” Mr. Ettenberg said after the arraignment.

Mr. Ettenberg said he had advised his client not to personally comment on the case.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Dudley teacher to be arraigned

 TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

WORCESTER— Shepherd Hill Regional High School teacher Amber S. Jennings is scheduled to be arraigned today on charges of posing a minor in sexual conduct, posing a minor in a state of nudity and dissemination of material harmful to minors.

A Worcester County grand jury returned the indictments against the 31-year-old Ms. Jennings on Feb. 11. Ms. Jennings, who was placed on paid administrative leave from her teaching job in Dudley in August, was previously charged in Dudley District Court with inducing a 16-year-old male student to have sexual intercourse and disseminating obscene materials to him. The indictments, which involve the same alleged victim, move the case to Worcester Superior Court.

The offenses with which Ms. Jennings has been charged are alleged to have occurred on various dates from Nov. 2, 2003, to June 30, 2004, in Dudley. Dudley police charged Ms. Jennings in July after an investigation prompted by a complaint from a relative of the student. Ms. Jennings is represented by Worcester lawyer Peter L. Ettenberg. Assistant District Attorney Joseph J. Reilly III has been assigned to prosecute the case.

December 10, 2004

DA wants Jennings grand jury
Plea bargain negotiations fail

 By Jean Laquidara Hill TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

DUDLEY— The district attorney’s office is seeking a grand jury indictment in the case against Shepherd Hill Regional High School teacher Amber S. Jennings, 31, on charges she induced a 16-year-old male student to have intercourse and disseminated obscene materials to him.

“It’s our intention to present the case to the grand jury,” Assistant District Attorney Joseph Reilly told the court yesterday. The next pretrial date was set for Jan. 27 in Dudley District Court.

Mr. Reilly, and defense lawyer Peter L. Ettenberg, who represents Mrs. Jennings, informed the court in October that they were trying to reach an agreement in the case. They told the court yesterday their efforts had been unsuccessful.

The two lawyers told Judge Neil G. Snider there are allegations that the stay-away order that the court issued to Mrs. Jennings has been violated by contact or efforts at contact, directly or indirectly, between Mrs. Jennings and the student with whom she allegedly had sex.

Asked by Judge Snider if “both sides might have some culpability,” Mr. Reilly answered, “Yes.”

Mr. Reilly told the court that witnesses, including the mother of the student, were in court yesterday and were prepared to testify in a hearing on alleged violations of the stay-away order, and that a hearing would take about two hours. At the time, the courtroom, one of two in the courthouse, was crowded with defendants from a courthouse list of 158 cases waiting to be heard yesterday.

Judge Snider asked Mr. Ettenberg if he had spoken with Mrs. Jennings about the seriousness of the stay-away order as a condition of being released on personal recognizance.

“I have and I made it quite clear to her,” Mr. Ettenberg said. Without explaining, he referred to “a situation” and said: “It’s not as if she’s going to the door at 2 o’clock in the morning.”

“No contact is no contact even if there’s an allegation of contact from the other side,” Mr. Reilly said.

Mrs. Jennings and her husband, Richard G. Jennings, were in the hallway during initial courtroom discussions between the lawyers and Judge Snider. The Jenningses had come into the courtroom earlier, but all the seats and most of the wall space was taken.

At that time they had walked toward a wall where there was space for two more people to stand. The alleged victim’s mother, stepfather and one or two other family members were standing there, and the Jenningses left the courtroom and waited in the hallway.

At Judge Snider’s request, Mr. Ettenberg brought Mrs. Jennings back into the courtroom. She stood expressionless answering Judge Snider’s questions. Wearing a black coat and slacks and a blue blouse, she held a pocketbook in front of her with both hands at first, then shifted it to one hand as she placed her other hand on a rail.

“As a condition of her court release, she is not allowed to have any contact,” Mr. Reilly told the court. “One of the allegations is she has been in that neighborhood,” Mr. Reilly said, referring to the alleged victim’s house.

“She has been on a neck of the road. There is no reason for her to be there. I would ask for one mile,” Mr. Reilly said, referring to increasing the distance in the stay-away order from 100 yards to one mile. He described the road as a dead end.

Judge Snider declined to extend the order to one mile, but expanded the order to include that Mrs. Jennings cannot be within 100 yards of the alleged victim’s family.

Speaking directly to Mrs. Jennings, Judge Snider placed the responsibility for avoiding the student and his family at her feet. If you see them, he said, “You turn around and go the other way.”

Judge Snider told Mrs. Jennings that if she gets a telephone call from someone she is not supposed to speak to, she should hang up.

“You also understand if this activity is in fact proven, it’s not helping you,” Judge Snider told Mrs. Jennings. He said violations of the stay-away order also could influence sentencing if she is found guilty of inducing a minor to have sex and providing him with obscene material.

If found guilty of both charges, Mrs. Jennings could be sentenced to up to eight years in a state prison or up to five years in a jail or house of correction. Conviction would require her to register as a sex offender, which would disqualify her from working in a public school system in this state and in some other states.

She was placed on paid administrative leave in August from her job teaching at Shepherd Hill Regional High School. A long-term substitute teacher has replaced her pending the outcome of the criminal case and the school district’s investigation into the accusations.

Dudley police brought the charges in Dudley District Court in July of inducing a chaste person younger than 18 to have sexual intercourse, and disseminating obscene material to a minor. The charges resulted from an investigation by Dudley police after a relative of the student named in the complaint contacted police. It is not unusual for felony charges to be put before a grand jury before bringing a suspect to trial. If indictments were issued, the case would be transferred to Worcester Superior Court for trial. Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public.

Mr. Ettenberg said after court that he and Mr. Reilly might still reach an agreement, which would negate the need for the grand jury process.

John Dignam of the Telegram & Gazette staff contributed to this story. Jean Laquidara Hill can be reached at jhill@telegram.com.

CØNTE2006.COM