The report finds MIT was never involved in plea negotiations, and was never asked—by either the prosecution or the defense—to approve or disapprove any plea agreement.
It's neutrality position:
MIT’s neutrality position had two dimensions:
1. With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz, the government’s decisions about charges in an indictment, or any possible plea bargain stances of the prosecution or the defense.
2. With regard to legal procedure, MIT would treat both federal law enforcement and Aaron Swartz’s defense team similarly for the purpose of providing documents and making employees available for interviews
...MIT took no stand on whether there should be prosecution. Similarly, while MIT was not seeking a felony charge, neither was it opposing one. And MIT took no position on any proposed plea bargains. MIT maintained this neutrality position in its response to requests to make public statements or to intercede with the prosecution on behalf of Aaron Swartz(citations omitted.) In each case, MIT was willing to say that it was not advocating prosecution or jail.
History of Plea Offers
According to the USAO, the earliest plea offer made to Aaron Swartz was the following: “a plea of guilty to a single felony count with a recommended sentence of three months imprisonment, to be followed by a period of supervised release the conditions of which
included a period in a halfway house, a period of home confinement, and—as is common in computer crime cases—restrictions on his use of computers during the period” of supervision.
According to Andrew Good, the first plea offer made by the U.S from the lead prosecutor before the initial indictment was returned. It included the following: Aaron Swartz would plead guilty to a felony; he would serve 13 months imprisonment; a period of supervisory release would follow the incarceration; and restrictions would be placed on Aaron Swartz’s computer use during the supervisory release. Aaron Swartz rejected this plea offer.
According to Mr. Kettlewell, during a reindictment meeting with at the USAO, a plea offer of six months imprisonment was made. It was rejected.
During the negotiations that followed this rejection, the USAO offered periods of jail time of up to six months, which included additional restrictions similar to the ones already discussed. That is, offers involved a “split sentence” (under which a defendant serves a term of imprisonment followed by a period of community confinement or home detention).
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, there was a period of time after the indictment when the government offered a plea along the following lines: Aaron Swartz would plead guilty; the government would retain the option to ask for jail time of up to six months; and the defense would be free to argue for a no-jail, probationary sentence.
Martin Weinberg and Robert Swartz offered the following clarification of this offer for the
Review Panel: Aaron Swartz would have to plead guilty to all four felony counts of the initial indictment; and a period of supervised release would follow any period of incarceration. According to Mr. Weinberg, an alternative plea offer, extended about the same time, would have required Aaron Swartz to waive his right to argue for no jail time, but would have reduced the time sought by the government to four months or less. Both plea offers could have been subject to further negotiations;however, they were rejected by the defense because—under the scope for such negotiations permitted by the USAO—under no circumstances could Aaron Swartz obtain a guarantee of no jail time.
According to Aaron Swartz’s attorneys, at no time did federal prosecutors entertain a plea
agreement for him that assured him no jail time, and the prosecutors always insisted on a plea to a felony as opposed to a lesser charge, that is, to a misdemeanor. It was during these discussions, according to Andrew Good, that he informed the lead prosecutor that Aaron Swartz was suicide risk, and the prosecutor responded that the office could have him locked up (presumably to prevent such an occurrence).
Some of the available documents:
