he wasn't accepting admitting to being a felon so it was very likely he was in fact going to get 35 years in prison for a TOS violation.
Also, the practice of "admit you're guilty, else go to prison for (life|35 years)" is a common practice of totalitarian states used to crush dissenters and activists.
A guilty verdict from a jury is not an automatic maximum sentence. The mostly-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines would have called for an actual sentence of 4-10 months in this case.
In the federal system, broad classes of crimes ("murder", "robbery", "wire fraud") have been assigned maximum sentences. For example, under no conditions can a sentence for wire fraud exceed 20 years (you get to the theoretical max of 35 in this case by adding the other charges, but they in the case everything would likely be folded into wire fraud on sentencing because all of the charges were based on the same conduct).
But most defendants convicted of wire fraud (even by a jury) don't serve 20 years. In fact, many first-time offenders don't serve anywhere close to that -- it's usually under a year.
Instead, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines [1] are a mostly-mandatory (there are constitutional reasons why judges are allowed to depart from the Guidelines, but it's rare and requires justification) system to calculate a range that a defendant will actually serve following a jury conviction.
Here, wire fraud is a "level 7" offense.[2] That offense level can be adjusted upward or downward based on other facts of the crime (e.g., was stock fraud involved? add 4). Assuming that Orrin Kerr was right and the total loss was $5,000 or less, there would be no adjustments and so Aaron's offense level would be 7.
Take that to the sentencing chart[3] and you can calculate that if Aaron had no priors he would be in criminal history category I and have an offense level of 7, which would be a sentence of 4-10 months. That's unpleasant, but it's a far cry from being "likely ... to get 35 years."
In fact, if you look at the sentencing chart, the only way for a first-time offender to have a Guidelines range of 35 years is to be above an offense level of 40. It takes serious work to get there: even a wire fraud of more than $300,000,000 in damages won't get you to that offense level. To get an offense level of 40, you're looking at first degree murder.
Familiarize yourself with the sentencing guidelines and you can see what was actually likely. A judge _could_ depart from the guidelines, but sentences significantly above the guidelines for a first-time offender are all but guaranteed to be struck down on appeal.
To take another example of the difference between maximum and actual sentences: the maximum sentence for murder in many states is death, but not everyone convicted of murder gets the death penalty.
Edit: Incidentally, the prosecutor is constitutionally _required_ to inform defendant of the full statutory maximum sentence, even if it's not realistic in a particular case. Failing to do so can be grounds for reversal of a plea or conviction. That doesn't mean the prosecutor has to tell the media, but he/she must tell the defendant.
If these numbers are really all just meaningless and in "reality" he was really only looking at...a year? why is it that nobody, even sources like Lessig, seem to be saying this.
> If these numbers are really all just meaningless and in "reality" he was really only looking at...a year? why is it that nobody, even sources like Lessig, seem to be saying this.
Because it goes in opposition to the worldview they're trying to push...? Everyone has a bias, you, me, Dr. Lessig, aaronsw, the prosecutors, EVERYONE.
It's like when the music/movie industry tries to claim that an illegally copied media file costs them hundreds of thousands in damages.
In this case you could theoretically get to 35+ by taking up all the charges, handing down sequential sentences (as opposed to the more-normal concurrent sentences), and somehow making all of those individual sentences go to the upper range of the permitted scale.
I and a few others have been trying to point out that 35 years in prison was never an actual option for some days now but I think it's kind of gotten lost in the storm...
> I and a few others have been trying to point out that 35 years in prison was never an actual option for some days now but I think it's kind of gotten lost in the storm...
here's what would help. If you are in fact a criminal law attorney and know these things via practice, or if you can point us all to some links of well respected criminal attorneys, without a stake in the case, on the record saying "it's very unlikely he would get more than four years".
Also, the practice of "admit you're guilty, else go to prison for (life|35 years)" is a common practice of totalitarian states used to crush dissenters and activists.