Teacher who texted students for sexual purposes must face charges, appellate court says

A woman who was a teacher at a New Jersey school must stand trial on official misconduct charges for offering herself for sex with 16 and 17 year old students at her school who were not her students. Karen Binder, 44, faces 10 years in prison and a $150,000 fine for the charges, which according to a New Jersey appellate court, were illegally dropped.

Karen Binder, 44, of Manalapan was arrested in March 2007 after authorities said the parents of a 17-year-old student told school officials that she sent their son a text message expressing her interest in having sex with him.

The boy told investigators that over a two-day period Binder sent him more than 100 text messages and proposed having sex with his brother and his father as well as himself, according to the Applellate Division's opinion.

The other victim, 16 and a student at the high school, was discovered during the investigation, authorities said. Binder also convinced the boy to send her explicit and revealing pictures of himself, according to the opinion.

Binder, whose previous conviction was for a DUI summons, was charged with official misconduct in July 2007. She was rejected from a pre-trial intervention program by the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and a court clerk because of her refusal to take a drug test and other considerations.

However, Superior Court Judge Barbara Stolte overulled them both and allowed Binder to participate in the diversion program focusing on the drug test, but a panel of three judges reversed Stolte's decision, stating that Stolte focused on the drug test, but not the other issues which prosecutors accounted for.

Part of the ruling is shown below.

"...the judge's conclusion that "the best way of dealing with the defendant's behavior is through intensive counseling and supervision" rather than through criminal prosecution was not hers to make.... The judge reweighed the proofs and reanalyzed the statutory factors as if she, rather than the prosecutor, was the person entrusted with the sensitive prosecutorial decision that is at stake whenever a diversion decision is being made... the judge's discussion of the deference due a prosecutor's decision was, in the end, little more than lip service.''

Binder's attorney Jacqueline Boulos stated "While we respect the Appellate Division's ruling, of course we disagree with it.''