Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

This column is a little over the top in places, but it links to this interesting article on a retired federal judge who is familiar with Ortiz & co. commenting on the case.

http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...

This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the express intent of making any action except accepting a plea bargain (and thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him."

But what raises the deepest concern when I read this article is that the author continues on to describe Swartz's case not as a particularly bad example of prosecutorial oppression but rather as an exemplar of justice in the United States: "The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."

What can we do about this?

I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that!

Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out of control, when this is the way DoJ does everything it touches and everybody knows it.

Important part:

Prosecutors Ortiz and Stephen Heymann turned to a standard trick while pursuing the case, mounting a total of thirteen felony counts against Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime. Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. More to the point, they assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him. The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one.

Yes, but it looks like he is seriously going after her.