Earlier today, I listened to Judge Scott Miller talk about what he referred to as “the craziest case he’s ever heard”. I will not go into the details of the case because I don’t remember if he said it was public, but it did involve a kidnapping where Judge Miller, a criminal defense attorney at the time, believed his client would be found guilty based on the evidence presented. Judge Miller brought up a great question for everyone in attendance: should you defend people that you believe to be guilty? On a legal level, the answer is unequivocally yes, as the 6th Amendment to the Constitution grants all US citizens the right to an attorney. However, the looking at it through the lens of personal morality changes it for some. After some reflection, I believe it is still necessary to defend anyone, whether or not you believe them to be guilty. Whether someone is guilty is a judgement call based on evidence. What you may see as evidence without a reasonable doubt another may have doubts about. Just as this question gets tricky when viewed through the lens of morality, juries must look at cases through the lens of morality based on the evidence presented. As the evidence of Judge Miller’s case unfolded, it became clear that there were doubts about whether the accused kidnapper was guilty. In the end, he was ruled to be innocent by the jury. In a court of law, the truth tends to win more than not. If you are to defend someone who you believe to be guilty, the evidence will speak for itself. The 6th Amendment is there to help those who you believe to be guilty who are actually innocent and protecting those people is the most important function of any court of law.