In the four years Hillary Clinton sent and received State Department correspondence using a private and insecure email system, Harold T. Martin III allegedly stockpiled classified information inside his Maryland home and an unlocked shed.

Martin faces charges for alleged theft of government documents and mishandling classified information that carry up to 11 years in prison, and he’s been behind bars since his August arrest, with prosecutors saying they intend to file more serious Espionage Act charges, often used by the Obama administration to go after leakers and whistleblowers.

Though prosecutors have not alleged the now-fired Booz Allen Hamilton contractor -- who worked for the National Security Agency six years before a transfer to the Pentagon last year -- is a spy or that he shared the information or allowed it to be accessed by a third party, they do allege he could be responsible for one of the largest security violations ever and knowingly mishandled classified records working various jobs over two decades.

Defense attorneys for prominent whistleblowers, accused leakers and careless clearance-holders say that unless more damning evidence emerges they could see Martin making a successful plea for leniency by pointing to the Justice Department’s decision this summer not to prosecute Clinton.

There are, of course, key differences in the cases, with volume the most glaring. The FBI found that Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, sent or received 110 emails that had classified information at the time they were sent, with eight email threads containing top secret information. Martin, by contrast, allegedly had many printed pages marked as being classified and 50 terabytes of potentially classified data (equivalent to roughly 500 million pages), much of it believed to be considered top secret.

Martin also allegedly confessed knowing he was not allowed to take the information home and that he initially lied to investigators. Clinton, by contrast, insists she never knowingly sent or received classified information using her private email server and repeatedly told the FBI she could not recall specifics.

“The Clinton case and the Martin [case] do have different facts. However, it is problematic that the severity of punishment in these cases has been based not on the facts of each case, but whether or not the accused is powerful and politically connected,” says Jesselyn Radack, an attorney who has represented whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou.

“The defense could seek leniency given the conclusion in the Clinton email case that extreme carelessness was not enough for charges,” she says.

Indeed, after the FBI announced in July that it would not recommend charges against Clinton, some defense attorneys said they would seek “the Clinton deal,” a sarcastic term meaning leniency for alleged misconduct.

FBI Director James Comey said in July that Clinton was “extremely careless” and had put classified information at risk of interception, but that the bureau could not establish that she intentionally mishandled records, and that without intent “no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case. He subsequently told Congress that Clinton lied to the public, but not the bureau -- a crime that ensnares many defendants.

The first test of the so-called “Clinton deal” defense came in August when former Navy machinist mate Kristian Saucier unsuccessfully requested probation after admitting he took photos of a nuclear submarine. He was sentenced to one year in prison for unlawfully retaining national defense information by keeping the photos, which were discovered on an old phone at a landfill.

Saucier is currently in prison for the photos, which he insisted were taken as innocent keepsakes to show his future children, but his attorneys say a forceful push to connect Saucier’s case to Clinton’s may have worked. The judge, who rebuffed a six-year sentence requested by prosecutors, noted the comparison from the bench.

“Whether it worked or not is up in the air… was there some leniency based on that? I don’t know, it’s possible,” says Greg Rinckey, one of Saucier’s attorneys.

As Martin is accused of doing, Saucier admitted he knew he was not allowed to take the photos and that he initially lied to investigators. He also admitted destroying evidence.

Rinckey says a clear takeaway for low-level officials unacquainted with criminal investigations is that they should not answer interrogator questions without an attorney present. Sometimes they mistakenly believe they can talk their way out of trouble, he says, and in so doing provide evidence against themselves.

“I think this Clinton defense would be used in this NSA individual’s case on sentencing. Is it going to protect him from being convicted? No. But on sentencing is it going to be used? I think it will be,” Rinckey says.

Another test of the “Clinton deal” defense is approaching as Marine Reserves Maj. Jason Brezler challenges the military’s decision to fire him for storing on his personal computer a report about a corrupt Afghan official, which he sent as a warning to troops before an apparent sexual abuse victim of the official murdered three Marines.

Mark Zaid, a defense attorney who has represented many whistleblowers and people accused of mishandling classified information, says he could see Martin’s attorneys being successful citing Clinton when asking for a lower sentence.

Examples of powerful people accused of mishandling records can help put the case into context, Zaid says.

Zaid says he secured a "Petraeus deal" for a client -- probation and a fine -- after former CIA Director David Petraeus was given that penalty last year when he admitted providing highly classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an affair and then lying about it to the FBI.

Zaid says many people with security clearances are accused of improperly taking home records, either for personal reasons or to finish work assignments on a deadline, but that the massive scale of Martin's stash points to intent. He says his client who cited Petraeus, who he declined to name, took home classified information to read, some of it dating back to the Cold War.

“It’s unfortunate that the courts tend to look at the smaller fries as the ones to try to set the bigger examples," Zaid says. "What I’d like to see is the higher ups are leading by example and their punishment is meant to send a signal to everyone beneath them."

James Wyda, a federal public defender representing Martin, did not respond to a request for comment, but in court filings has described him as a patriot who did not damage U.S. national security.

Martin reportedly was caught when authorities investigated the theft of computer code from the NSA that was posted online earlier this year by the Shadow Brokers, an individual or group that offered additional code for sale before calling off an auction.

Prosecutors have given some hints that Martin may be more than a classic hoarder. In arguing against pre-trial release, they note although he does not have a valid passport, he did have 10 guns -- some previously unknown to his wife and including a loaded handgun in his car. Also in his car, authorities found "a printed email chain marked as 'Top Secret' and containing highly sensitive information."

On the back of the printed emails are "handwritten notes describing the NSA’s classified computer infrastructure and detailed descriptions of classified technical operations," prosecutors said, as well as "descriptions of the most basic concepts associated with classified operations, as if the notes were intended for an audience outside of the intelligence community unfamiliar with the details of its operations."

“The Hillary Clinton story isn’t over yet," Rinckey adds. "It’s going to depend on what they find on Anthony Weiner and Huma [Abedin]’s laptop."