They never actually say they're going to make 'something' happen if you don't deal. But everyone knows that is exactly what they mean.
It's no different for the prosecutors. Stating the maximums in a case that clearly does not compel the maximums is an intentional negotiating tactic that amounts to intimidation. It quite clearly and obviously means "I will use the threat of the worst-case-scenario, in negotiations, to wring every last month of term and dollar of penalty out of you." And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz.
And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz.
No. This was business as normal. This is what they do to EVERYONE. Whether THAT is OK is a different issue. But they really weren't singling him out for significantly worse treatment than they give to other people.
Such a defense would not only be an admission that the original criticisms against the office were 100% correct, but that the 'problem' of their unethical and immoral behavior is, in fact, much deeper than just Swartz.
Which is, in fact, why Ortiz won't go anywhere near a claim that they treat everyone the way they treat Swartz, with similar disregard for the particulars of their case or any human sense of justice or proportionality.
Attempting that argument would concede that the Swartz case is but today's face on the larger issue of proescutors run amok. [1]
[1] A subject well covered in a blog post by Charles Pierce, that I previously linked to in a thread on this topic: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swar...
I'm well aware that they treat everyone this way. That's not a different issue. It is the issue.
I'd say in that case they would be gunning for everyone they prosecute. As opposed to the people they aren't prosecuting. An alien invader could be gunning for everyone on Earth. "Gunning for" doesn't have some distribution defined definition when enacted by a single individual - an individual can "gun for" everyone in context and some do.
She can't say what a judge will do. She can't say what sentence the defense team might argue for. She can't even necessarily give a formal pronouncement of what she might argue for as that could tamper with negotiations between the prosecution and defense attorneys!
The only factual statement you can make about the charges when they're filed to give an impression of the seriousness is the statutory maximum, so-and-so can face up to X years in prison based on these charges.
I swear it sounds like a lot of the people here are either blissfully unaware of legal cases in general or are deliberately being hyperbolic now that it suits them. The former you can blame on ignorance I suppose, but the latter is disgusting.
No, that was not what she said. She said that he could be facing up to 35 years. In other words 35 years would be the maximum penalty. There is no implication that she was seeking the maximum penalty at any time.