|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|