For whatever it's worth, that article repeats the false claim that Heymann was pursuing a 35 year sentence for Swartz; they were in fact seeking an order of magnitude less time, and were unlikely to get even that (Swartz's own lawyer, writing after his death, noted that even if convicted --- not itself a certainty --- he might not have faced any custodial time).

I write this not to downplay Ortiz and Heymann (I share the common HN sentiment about their behavior and culpability) but as a warning that if an article gets the basic fact that you don't work out sentences by multiplying the statutory maximum for an offense against the number of counts, there's likely other stuff they got wrong too, and this whole article is inside baseball.

Who knows where Ortiz and, more importantly, Heymann are headed now. It's worth keeping your eyes open.

This seems like a motte and bailey.

There is the theoretical maximum sentence someone could receive, then there is the much shorter sentence they're likely to receive even if convicted, then there's the even shorter sentence if the prosecution fails to prove the most serious charges or the defendant takes a plea.

Prosecutors commonly scare monger using the theoretical maximum in their press releases or when trying to coerce a plea out of a defendant. It isn't any more likely then than it is when a reporter says it, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Swartz had exceptionally good representation. I'm confident they knew how to calculate a guideline sentence. For that matter: you could too; it's not rocket science. You'll be off on some particulars, but you'll get a sense of what the ballpark is. Go look up the federal sentencing guidelines.

Yeah, turns out she miscalculated a bit with this particular offering to Moloch.

From the final paragraph:

> Ortiz is now the former prosecutor who is linked to the suicide of a once-in-a-generation talent and who fought Biden’s labor secretary nominee over his labor practices and lost.