It's reasonable to expect for the media to accurately interpret this, but clearly that isn't happening.
It's really immaterial whether the accused knows the fine print or not. Here's a thought experiment I did on myself. I have to chose between the following two.
1. Challenge the accusation. There's a net probability of 1% of me sent to prison for 35%.
2. Plead guilty and face prison time of 7 years.
I'd chose #2 because the prospect of spending 35 years in prison terrifies me!
Reporters parrot 35 years probably because for an accused facing 35 years is a real prospect, however improbable.
The plea deal offered wasn't for 7 years (that would have been insane). It was for something like six months. Six months in prison is still a travesty, but it is nothing at all like 7 years.
Please pardon my ignorance here; but was there a non zero probability of Swartz being sentenced for 35 years? That is key here in my opinion. Because if there was even a remote chance then that's sufficient to play on the mind of Swartz and psyche him up.
And if the probability of 35 years sentence was exactly zero then one ought to sue the media and the ecosystem who have kept drumming up 35 years.
As the studies by the Nobel laureate and multiple others have shown when it comes to loss aversion, with such high stakes, humans don't think "logically". The capability of counsel is also irrelevant here.