My perspective probably differs, since I used to work for the public defender and never lost a jury trial, so I can see how most people would find the situation very stressful.
But I do stand by my point that most defendants do not commit suicide.
But I do stand by my point that most defendants do not commit suicide.
Please stop trying to argue from personal authority. Say your piece. Cite claims that could benefit from that.
Now you may think that Ortiz was likely to lose at trial. However Orrin Kerr's analysis did not agree with you. (See http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ if you want to be reminded of that analysis.) As far as anyone here knows, you're a random internet poster who has not proven to be very convincing on the law. By contrast Orrin Kerr is a respected law professor who is commenting on his area of specialty. Therefore he's arguing from much stronger authority than you are. (And he backed up what he said with specifics of the legal charges and relevant precedents.)
That being said, the fact that you didn't win on a count doesn't mean that you were "falsely accused." The standard for winning on a count is "beyond a reasonable doubt" or say 95%. The standard for actions being considered in sentencing is "more likely than not" or 50%.
Say the trial proves a 75% probability that you did counts 1-12, and a 98% probability that you did count 13. That means you can't be convicted on 1-12, but because it's more likely than not you really did it, the judge is allowed to consider those counts in determining your sentence, but only up to the maximum for the single count.
The rationale behind this is that the judge is also allowed to consider, in your benefit, things like other peoples' opinions of your character, etc. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, e.g. you're a good husband and father. This cuts both ways--the prosecutor also doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you beat your wife.
Not saying I agree with it, but it has a certain symmetry.
The real problem is that the maximum sentences for any given count are totally ridiculous.
It seems like one good inoculation against overcharging would be for damages and facts establishing conduct to be fenced off by which charges succeed and which fail, so that failing to convict on a charge puts part of the sentence at risk, as opposed to filling up some freakish "community chest" of sentencing accelerators.
She did talk about each additional conviction adding to the maximum possible sentence for a plea bargain, but then said that the guideline calculation is still the same.
She linked a PDF of hers, and I tried to read it, but ironically it requires HTTP authentication to some journal archive which I haven't paid for and don't have access to.
I've also tried going through the 2011 Federal sentencing guidelines to confirm what you gleaned from Granick, but to be honest they're too byzantine for me to get through in a few minutes with no training.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure how you got from Granick to what you're talking about here. Perhaps I missed a linked article from the site hosting her original article?
Either way I don't see how it would make sense to credit '# of charges' alone in sentencing as it is well-known that in general the prosecution has to bring all charges it can prove related to the case, if only because of double-jeopardy.
Let's say I get charged under, say, 100(c), with elements of proof [A, B, C] and 100(d) with elements of proof [D, E, F]. They convict me on all of A, B, C (and therefore find me guilty of violating 100(c)). They find I actually broke D and E too, but not F, therefore I'm not guilty on 100(d).
If D and E are related to 100(c) why should a judge not take that into consideration? The jury confirmed those elements of the charge were true beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have heard from somewhere that judges may consider elements that were not confirmed by the jury as long as there's still a preponderance of evidence to support. That could be an issue I suppose, if you suspect the judiciary is on average corrupt. But even that still passes the "common sense" test IMHO.
Either way, what I got from Granick was that the worst element of the sentencing calculation by far was the loss calculations (which could essentially easily be "blank check"ed by MIT), not that the judge is allowed to consider related conduct proven by the defendant.