I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that.
Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse."
> make an example of someone
I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence.
> evade establishing precedent
I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.
Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.