>These two links will clear up a lot of misconceptions you seem to have about this case.
Do they? The first analyses the law given a stated set of assumptions about the facts. If Swartz was able to successfully dispute some of those alleged facts (many of which came from the indictment), it could completely change the outcome. And the second basically punts on the specific issue of whether the plea offered was appropriate or not, describing the legal standard but declining to apply it to the case.
Both posts are excellent if you want to get a feel for the law surrounding this case from someone who legitimately knows what he's talking about, but whether what the prosecutors did was appropriate depends substantially on the actual facts, which Kerr has no better access to than the rest of us.
To hear Aaron's defense counsel tell it, the facts show that he was completely innocent. And if you accept that version of the facts rather than the one in the indictment, it seems especially difficult to conclude that what prosecutors did was appropriate.
Do they? The first analyses the law given a stated set of assumptions about the facts. If Swartz was able to successfully dispute some of those alleged facts (many of which came from the indictment), it could completely change the outcome. And the second basically punts on the specific issue of whether the plea offered was appropriate or not, describing the legal standard but declining to apply it to the case.
Both posts are excellent if you want to get a feel for the law surrounding this case from someone who legitimately knows what he's talking about, but whether what the prosecutors did was appropriate depends substantially on the actual facts, which Kerr has no better access to than the rest of us.
To hear Aaron's defense counsel tell it, the facts show that he was completely innocent. And if you accept that version of the facts rather than the one in the indictment, it seems especially difficult to conclude that what prosecutors did was appropriate.