decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You have it backwards | 183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You have it backwards
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 12:08 PM EST
I believe you have it backwards. Ortiz is the prosecutor. She is responsible for charging Swartz with what she believes will get a conviction in court. Ortiz could have chosen not to prosecute, but that would most likely be based on lack of evidence. Ortiz is responsible for determining what evidence she believes proves his guilt, but the final determination is left to a judge and jury.

Accusations of misconduct are NOT standalone. They directly relate to the argument of whether Ortiz was bringing appropriate charges, and thus bullying Swartz or not. If the charges where appropriate, then it cannot constitute bullying, even if the theoretical maximum sentence is horribly disproportionate to the crime. That is why things like intent and damages are taken into account for determining sentence. Suppose the case goes to trial, and Swartz is acquitted of all charges. It doesn't necessarily mean the charges were inappropriate. That is why the documentation and chain of approval described in the AG's memo is important. It will help determine if there was misconduct, but it may also turn out that everything was perfectly legit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )