I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain.
So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control.
The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.
The maximum was so high they didn't even need to go near it for the terrifying threats of the > 10:1 ratio. The talk is that the plea would have been 6 months and that at trial they would have asked for 6 years. 12:1 ratio and they can truthfully say that they weren't asking for the maximum. They can't truthfully say that they wouldn't seek the ridiculous though.
Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously.
Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.
Ha. They're actually not contradictory, if you look at it like a lawyer. They never said to the court or to his lawyers that they'd seek maximum penalties. They said it to the press.
Jesus, that's slimy. I'd say Ortiz is still in denial about the fact that she just lost her chance at the governorship just for playing the game by the normal rules. Corruption sucks when it comes back to bite you.
Why would those be contradictory? If the prosecution charges a person with X, and the maximum penality for X is, say, 10 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say that this person faces up to 10 years in prison.
In court the prosecution may well argue for, say, a 5 year penality under the given circumstances, and ultimately it's up to the judge.
So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control.
The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.