The evidence for this theory can be found in yesterday’s indictment of Matthew Keys.  The DoJ has negligible interest in prosecuting a relatively harmless prank on the LA Times web site.  

But they do have an interest in leveraging their prosecutorial power to gain information on the identities of members of the Anonymous collective. That’s their obvious objective.

But the Secret Service wanted the seized property for an unrelated purpose — to search for information that might lead to the identities of members of the Anonymous collective.

You rock.

That’s still not quite a “concrete implication” because Heymann will have immunity for any crimes committed in the course of prosecuting Swartz.

failing or neglecting to supply evidence to affirmatively prove a thesis.

But that’s not what happened here so that distinction is irrelevant.

A defense can be mounted based on the fact that no warrant was issued for seized property.  The prosecution did not disclose the fact that property was seized without a warrant.

That is, a defense attorney can argue for a “not guilty” finding on this basis.  That would seem to make it “exculpatory evidence” in every way that matters (i.e. not in an obnoxious internet pedantry way but in a way that would actually make a difference in a courtroom).

If geeks would like to share some citation or reference in which a distinction is clearly drawn between exculpatory evidence and evidence of investigative or prosecutorial misconduct I would happily acknowledge that I’m wrong on this.

As I read it, the Secret Service was in no rush to examine Aaron’s computer and thumb drive because they wanted it for reasons unrelated to the DoJ case against him.  As I read it, the Secret Service wanted these items to discover information that might have led them to identify members of the Anonymous collective.

As I understand it, Aaron routinely encrypted sensitive files on his machines, making a search warrant fairly useless.

Yes it does. It is evidence that would clear someone. Waiting too long to get a warrant doesn’t contribute to clearing someone, it just removes evidence to convict someone. This is not the same thing, just as “not guilty” “innocent” (not implying either in this case). Exculpatory evidence is evidence of innocence, not merely something to throw out evidence of guilt.

I Hope You Are Happy.

But regardless of how one feels about the above, the definition of “exculpatory” (both the one I pointed out and the one you quote) makes no distinctions between exoneration based on technicalities vs otherwise.

Get caught with a joint goto jail for the rest of your days.
Lock an innocent man in prison, get a promotion.

edited to try to unbreak links and failed… so I link to the list where i posted it before…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/01330322250/aaron-swartzs-partner-accuses-doj-lying-seizing-evidence-without-warrant-withholding-exculpatory-evidence.shtml#c1332

We lost it when we realized they are itchy-trigger-finger petulant little children looking for any poor excuse to get us into the interrogation room and ram a toilet plunger up our rectum for a confession of our sins followed by a public lynching in the town square. 

We lost it when we realized we are essentially no further along than the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials.  That’s when we lost our trust.

Even with the definition you posted this doesn’t fit. Waiting too long to get a warrant doesn’t clear one from fault or guilt, it merely excludes evidence of said guilt, exculpatory evidence would actually contribute to clearing him. Example: Evidence that a murder suspect was out of the country when the crime took place.

Exculpatory: tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.

Seems like the word is being used appropriately.

The bigger reason people are losing trust in law enforcement is because those rules against hiding evidence, purjury, or worse, simply aren’t enforced in many cases where anyone else would be jailed on the order of decades.