I think it’s completely acceptable not to bring charges against a person who does something bad that’s not exactly a crime. Even if it’s really, really bad.
Yes, the prosecution is absolutely free to prove “every element of the charged offense and every relevant fact.”
What are the elements of 18 USC § 1030(a)(2)(C)?
[ul]
[li]intentionally accessing a computer[/li][li]without or exceeding authorization[/li][li]and obtaining information[/li][li]from a protected computer[/li][li]in interstate commerce[/li][li]in furtherance of a crime or tortious act[/li][/ul]
The tort in question is intentional infliction of emotional distress. This part isn’t exactly my area, but what I remember of torts class long ago is:
[ul]
[li]Iintentional or reckless action, which is[/li][li]Objectively extreme and outrageous, and which[/li][li]is intended to cause severe emotional distress.[/li][/ul]
How is her suicide relevant to any of that?
And even assuming that it has some slight evidentiary value, how is it that value not vastly outweighed by the inflammatory effect of the fact?
Tort liability hinges on damages and proxation (cause in fact/proximate cause). Hence the *elements *of the tort are:
http://www.quojure.com/samples/archives/emotionaldistress.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4023/is_200607/ai_n16731445/pg_23
I think this begs the question though–the crime requires that the access be “in furtherance of a crime or tortious act.” Is that the same thing as acting in a fashion that would result in liability for a tort? If so, then the prosecution has a decent argument. If it’s not, the term could be construed more broadly to include intentional acts that would be torts if they caused harm (just as the criminal acts described most likely include inchoate offenses). Maybe they addressed that in their papers, I don’t remember. This, of course, puts defense counsel in the awkward position of arguing that the criminal statute is actually broader than the prosecution suggests–just to keep evidence out. 
Oh, I agree with you there.
Guilty on misdemeanor charges; mistrial on conspiracy charge: Guilty verdicts in case of MySpace user's suicide - CNN.com
What a creepy looking woman. That photo where she’s STARING right at the camera – ugh, chills. And her daughter Sarah’s a fat fucking cow, too. No wonder they both had to lie on the Internet – no man will ever fuck that homely, lipid-ridden demon spawn child. She makes Kelly Osbourne look like Madonna.
At least Ms. Drew was found guilty of something…it’s small comfort, but at least it’s something.
I don’t care so much about any charges being filed. This incident is going to follow Mrs. Drew around forever and that’s enough for me.
Yeah, but letting evil scumbags get off with things practically scot-free, yeah, that does a LOT for respect for the legal system. Right?