Teacher Gets 20 Years for Abusing a Minor. Her Lawyer Blames the Kid.

by Pitt Griffin on August 5, 2019 · 0 comments

in Crime

Brittany Zamora is a 28-year-old teacher, who today received a 20-year sentence in Maricopa County (AZ) Superior Court for sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy. This sentence — the lowest possible in the face of the charges — was the result of a plea deal.

Her lawyer, Belen Olmedo Guerra, says that the whole thing is terribly unfair because it was the boy’s fault. Really? Let’s have a look.

In a news conference shortly after the sentencing, Guerra, with Zamora’s mother and a family friend standing silently behind her, claimed there were extenuating circumstances. “This was not between a young child and Brittany — this was a teenager.”

Guerra added that the boy was ‘obsessed’ with his teacher and had ‘boundary issues’. She claimed the teen persistently inquired about Zamora’s identifying features, such as birthmarks and moles. And that his behavior so disturbed Zamora she requested a transfer to a different class. 

The lawyer blamed school principal, Timothy Dickey, for ignoring Zamora’s request. The boy’s family even had Dickey’s cell phone number because of their son’s “many behavioral issues,” according to Guerra. A fact she learned in a defense interview with Dickey.

All of which raises two questions. One, if all of this is extenuating, why did Zamora and her lawyer agree to the plea deal? Two, is it extenuating?

About now you are probably wondering what Zamora actually did. And this is where the lawyer’s argument begins to crumble.

The ‘relationship’ between boy and teacher started when — in her brightly-colored, sixth-grade classroom — Zamora grabbed his shirt, pulled him in for a hug, and kissed him. This led later to sexual contact in the back of the classroom while class was in session, and the other students were watching videos.

At other times Zamora “touched his stuff” at her desk as she pretended to look for something in a drawer — while students were working on a project just a few feet away. The boy told an interviewer: “She said she wanted to give me a blow job, and my stuff is really big and stuff like that.”

The two had sex multiple times in her car and the classroom, including one occasion when another boy was solicited to be a look-out.

There is no reasonable doubt as to what happened. There are notes, texts, recordings, and remarks made by Zamora that spell out the events. And there was even an attempt by Zamora’s cuckolded husband to keep the matter out of police hands. In a recording made by the boy’s parents, he pleads for their understanding while insisting his wife was a good person.

It is hard to understand how anything the lawyer said has any bearing on what Zamora chose to do. She was the sexual aggressor. And if anything, the boy’s multiple ‘issues’ should have been a clear reminder that he was not in a position, by age or temperament, to make good decisions.

Which brings us to the unavoidable point – the law is clear. Sex between a 27-year-old and a 13-year-old is a crime. There is no excuse. A 13-year-old can strip his clothes off and demand sex, but a 27-year-old cannot accede to the demand — under any circumstances. 

And in this case, there is no mistaking the age of the boy. There can be no claim that he ‘looked’ 18. She knew he was a 6th-grader. 

The sexual abuse of a minor is statutory rape as the child is presumed too immature to give consent. – It’s made worse when the abuser is an authority figure — say a teacher or a priest. Adding to the severity of the crime is the age of the victim. Any lawyer should know that the “this was not a young child — this was a teenager” defense is legal crap — 13 is not 17.

There is also a feeling that somehow women abusing boys is not as big a deal as men abusing girls — it’s a boy’s fantasy, but a girl’s nightmare. That manages to be sexist, patronizing, and just wrong. Some thirteen-year-old boys may have fantasies about being inducted to ‘manhood’ by an older woman, but that is just what it is, a fantasy. 

People’s sexual reveries have them imagining all manner of outré circumstances that are titillating in the abstract or maybe even indulged by role-playing. But consenting adults agree on a ‘safe word’ and can walk away if it goes where they don’t want it to go. Thirteen-year-olds coerced into sexual acts do not have that ‘out’.

Pedophilia is a crime of violence when a person, who has power, tramples the bodily integrity of someone who doesn’t. It is an assault. In this case, the perpetrator was a woman entrusted with the care of minors. Her mandate was to educate them. To give them knowledge. To walk them several steps on the path to intellectual maturity. Not to f*ck them.

Nobody with a conscience could possibly think that there are any circumstances which would justify this breach of trust. Children across America are told to respect their teachers. Parents, who agonize over school shootings, shouldn’t have to worry their kids will be molested by the people to whom they entrust them.

So what was this lawyer thinking in blaming the victim? The deal is done, and the sentence is pronounced. Plea deals don’t allow for appeals. And even if they did, nothing in her claims changes the evidence or the trial procedure. She introduces no grounds from which to launch an appeal.

Maybe she’s just insane.   

Previous post:

Next post: