People reporting on federal criminal justice — whether journalists or bloggers — routinely report on the statutory maximum sentence that a defendant could hypothetically get, an oft-ridiculous figure calculated by taking all the charged crimes and adding up the maximum punishment for each. This is usually followed by some sort of pronouncement that THIS PERSON CHARGED OF MINOR CRIMES FACES MORE JAIL TIME THAN YOU'D GET IF YOU BEAT A TODDLER TO DEATH WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS NUN WHILE RAPING A BLIND LIBRARIAN, or words to that effect.
The problem is this number — the sum of the maximum sentence for all the crimes charged in a federal case — usually bears almost no relation to the sentence the defendant actually faces.
Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. The Department of Justice, and its constituent U.S. Attorney's Offices, bear responsibility for repeating statutory maximums in their press releases bragging of indictments. Journalists and bloggers bear responsibility for repeating those numbers uncritically, especially if they repeat the "THAT'S MORE THAN YOU'D GET FOR DOUBLE-MURDER" meme.
Read the rest of the article, which explains in detail how sentencing actually works. White's article is written about a whale sushi case, so I provided a link to the applicable sentencing guideline for computer fraud cases.
Later
You edited your comment to make the point that NPR was reporting what the prosecutors actually said. I addressed that in my comment too, but, more importantly: no, that's not what they did. They wrote that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. Not that prosecutors incorrectly and dishonestly claimed that he faced such a sentence --- or even that the provenance of that number was the prosecutors at all. Any reader could (and probably does) come away from that piece with the idea that Swartz actually faced a 35 year sentence. And of course, that's preposterous.