http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd...
II.B.3, last sentence. Read the whole section for a summary of that event.
During the June 21 conversation, the lead prosecutor also told OGC [the MIT Office of General Counsel] that, essentially, his work was done, that the final decision about the prosecution was now in the hands of his supervisors, and that a decision would be made soon. The OGC attorney took the opportunity to suggest that some people at MIT would be likely to view the prosecution negatively. The lead prosecutor replied that he understood the complex dynamics at MIT. He said that he had also been in touch with JSTOR and understood their perspective, and had taken both into account in moving forward with the prosecution and he would let MIT know when the indictment came down. From this, OGC inferred that further presentations of MIT’s opinions were unlikely to have an effect on the prosecution: the views of both potential victims had already been taken into account. JSTOR (at that point) was regarded as the primary victim, and if JSTOR’s view didn’t have an impact, then neither would MIT’s view.
"The heavily redacted documents released today confirm earlier reports that the Secret Service was interested in a “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” that Swartz and others had penned in 2008. In May 2011, a Secret Service agent and a detective from the Cambridge police department interviewed a friend of Swartz and inquired specifically about the political statement."
If you are a hammer, you must smash all nails as hard as possible until they commit suicide? Is that prosecution discretion?
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/swartz-foia-release...