Bob Swartz said his son was innocent under the law and dismissed the notion that his son had a depressive personality. "He had never been diagnosed as having depression; he was never on medication for having depression," Swartz said.

Aaron Swartz's mother had been hospitalized in December 2011 after having a bowel obstruction and going into septic shock, Bob Swartz said. She spent several weeks in a coma, four months in intensive care, and two more months in the hospital. "So the notion, the narrative that people are going to say -- is that he’s somebody who just has depression -- is just wrong. You’d be depressed too if you were under a 13-count federal indictment and you go see your mother, who’s in a coma."

Wednesday, Ortiz issued a statement defending her office's handling of the Aaron Swartz case. After expressing her sympathy to those who loved Aaron, she wrote:

I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.

What she doesn't say is why her office insisted on a felony plea, which Aaron's lawyers have said was the stumbling block to a deal. If the Government was going to request a sentence of less than one year, and agree to allow his lawyers to request probation, why not agree to a misdemeanor?

Federal misdemeanors are defined as crimes carrying a penalty of up to a year in prison. If she was willing to recommend four to six months, and not preclude his attorneys from asking for probation, why not let him plead to a misdemeanor computer fraud offense, like 18 USC 1030 (a)(2) which applies to:

(a)(2) [Whoever] intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-- [c] information from any protected computer;

Especially since Ortiz admits the Government had no evidence "he committed his acts for personal financial gain", why wouldn't the equities of the situation make that a just result?

The penalty for a violation of this section:

(2) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;

Subsection B bumps the crime to a felony in the following instances:

(i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or
(iii) the value of the information obtained exceeds $ 5,000.

It seems to me that the Government could have stipulated damages were too speculative to be readily provable that they exceeded $5,000, and foregone the felony. Especially since JStor, the victim whose material was downloaded, said at the time of Aaron's arrest it was not interested in prosecuting Aaron:

We stopped this downloading activity, and the individual responsible, Mr. Swartz, was identified. We secured from Mr. Swartz the content that was taken, and received confirmation that the content was not and would not be used, copied, transferred, or distributed.

The criminal investigation and today’s indictment of Mr. Swartz has been directed by the United States Attorney’s Office. It was the government’s decision whether to prosecute, not JSTOR’s. As noted previously, our interest was in securing the content. Once this was achieved, we had no interest in this becoming an ongoing legal matter.

Also, why were prosecutors insisting on a plea to all charges, rather than just one? The sentencing guidelines encompass all relevant conduct and in the event of a plea, the Government wasn't objecting to a sentence within the range of one misdemeanor count. Here is AG Holder's