[bryanmig]

Admittedly, I dont know anything about the law but I have a couple of questions:

1) If convicted, would that have set some precedent that could have affected others for years to come?

2) If the "Suggest of Death" papers were filed, does that mean that the courts cannot convict him of any wrong doing, thus preventing any precedent from being set?

(Though it sounds like one.. this is not a conspiracy theory.. just a legitimate question)

[vacri]

Common law holds an individual responsible for their actions, not their families or associates. As such, there is no-one to punish in the event of death, so there is no point in continuing the trial (and no-one to pay for a defense, hence no fair trial is possible). It's why in some areas suicide is not a crime, but attempted suicide is.

[jelled]

Criminal convictions don't carry any binding authority of precedent. Only if some issue of the case were to be appealed, would the ruling on that issue become precedent on courts subject to that appellate jurisdiction.

Having said that, a successful conviction could encourage other ambitious AUSAs to bring charges in situations with similar facts.

[pseingatl]

1. Generally speaking, district court criminal cases are non-precedential; i.e., they are not binding on other courts. Sometimes a district court will decide a legal issue that is adopted by a higher court and then becomes precedential. But the more I think about this case, the more it seems to be a political case, and in political cases, the rules are different. In this case, if the Internet reporting is correct, Swartz was only given the option to plead open to the indictment. That is extraordinary. Usually in a non-political case the prosecutor will agree to dismiss most of the counts in exchange for a guilty plea; would recommend a cap or prospective sentence, agree on the amount of the fine, agree not to allocute, etc. Someone wanted Swartz' head on a pike, perhaps for the PACER episode. 2. Yes. Upon the death of the defendant, the case is over. With all respect to Ms. Ortiz, Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Crim. Proc. shouldn't apply in this case. That rule relates to the dismissal of charges before trial. Upon the death of the defendant, the case cannot proceed to trial as there is no longer a case or controversy; there is only one name on the side of the v. and there needs to be a name on each side. This is a simplification, and it may well be a practice in the District of Massachusetts, but it is not the correct procedure (though I may be hypertechnical here). The point is that it wasn't government benevolence that caused them to file, the case was over upon the death of the sole criminal defendant. If there was another party involved, the case can and would proceed, absent a plea.

[mpyne]

Your questions are kind of like asking about what could happen if we could go faster than the speed of light. But in this case I don't think there's much to be gained precedent-wise one way or the other, the applicable laws have been on the books (at least in their basic form) for decades.