I don't see how any of your argument applies to the Swartz case. Swartz makes the worst poster boy for criminal justice reform ever.
He was not a disadvantaged minority. He was not poor, was not a "poor looking defendant". He was a rich white college educated adult. He was a faculty member at Harvard University. It was not a case of manufactured or suppressed evidence. There was solid evidence that he committed the crimes of which he was accused. He was not forced to use a public defender.
And most importantly, this was not a good example of the abuse of plea bargaining. The cases where the plea bargain system are most troublesome are the cases where the defendant has to make the choice between a guilty plea and a trial - while sitting in a jail cell unable to make bail. The choice Swartz faced was a fair one. The choice someone makes when faced with a guilty plea to a felony and a 6 month sentence, or who knows how long in jail during the trial and sentencing is much less fair.
As Orin Kerr wrote:
These sorts of tactics have been going on for years, without many people paying attention. If we don’t want a world in which prosecutors have these powers, we shouldn’t just object when the defendant in the crosshairs is a genius who went to Stanford, hangs out with Larry Lessig, and is represented by the extremely expensive lawyers at Keker & Van Nest. We should object just as much — or even more — when the defendant is poor, unknown, and unconnected to the powerful. To do otherwise sends an extremely troubling message to prosecutors that they need to be extra sensitive when considering charges against defendants with connections. We have too much of a two-tiered justice system already, I think.
So much of the response to the case - not yours specifically - seems to be simply tribal. It doesn't seem that people in general care that prosecutors use these powers every day against poor or disadvantaged people. It seems to bother people here that the prosecutors dare use these tactics against one of us.