I know from personal experience that the US Attorney's Office always states in their press releases the maximum penalty possible that the defendant is facing. Each charge has a maximum number of years and they state the number of possible consecutive years possible.
Had Aaron Swartz been found guilty, there is no way he was going to face the maximum penalty. There is a high probability that the penalties associated with the charges would have been run concurrently.
Once found guilty, US Probation writes a Pre-Sentencing Report which calculates the time the defendant is facing. This calculation is based upon numerous details, including but not limited to actual damages, criminal history, and offense level with points that range from from 1 to 43.
If a defendant agrees with the government that he or she is guilty and pleads accordingly, he or she will generally get fewer points for offense level. If a defendant contests the charges and exercises his or her constitutional right to have his or her case heard by a jury and is found guilty, US Probation will increase the number of points. (Imagine that. The government gives you more prison time for exercising your right to a trial under the Constitution). The more points calculated, the more time a defendant is facing.
Good time is applied to a sentence by the federal prison. An inmate is supposed to do 85% of their time if he or she has no infractions, but since the federal prison system has an interest in keeping people imprisoned, the bureaucracy has found a way to deliberately mis-read the good time statute and apply it in a way so that a defendant actually does 86.2% of their time. A sentence of one year or less will not have good time applied. Anything above one year and the good time calculation is applied.
The biggest risk in taking a case to trial are the members of the jury. The government educational system has done a great job of dumbing people down so that they follow the government's bidding. ie., "If he's on trial, he must be guilty." Few people actually think for themselves and question what is told to them by an authority figure.
Had Aaron Swartz been found guilty, there is no way he was going to face the maximum penalty. There is a high probability that the penalties associated with the charges would have been run concurrently.
Once found guilty, US Probation writes a Pre-Sentencing Report which calculates the time the defendant is facing. This calculation is based upon numerous details, including but not limited to actual damages, criminal history, and offense level with points that range from from 1 to 43.
If a defendant agrees with the government that he or she is guilty and pleads accordingly, he or she will generally get fewer points for offense level. If a defendant contests the charges and exercises his or her constitutional right to have his or her case heard by a jury and is found guilty, US Probation will increase the number of points. (Imagine that. The government gives you more prison time for exercising your right to a trial under the Constitution). The more points calculated, the more time a defendant is facing.
Good time is applied to a sentence by the federal prison. An inmate is supposed to do 85% of their time if he or she has no infractions, but since the federal prison system has an interest in keeping people imprisoned, the bureaucracy has found a way to deliberately mis-read the good time statute and apply it in a way so that a defendant actually does 86.2% of their time. A sentence of one year or less will not have good time applied. Anything above one year and the good time calculation is applied.
The biggest risk in taking a case to trial are the members of the jury. The government educational system has done a great job of dumbing people down so that they follow the government's bidding. ie., "If he's on trial, he must be guilty." Few people actually think for themselves and question what is told to them by an authority figure.