I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Judge Scott Miller’s perspective on his role as a criminal defendant and his thoughts on the country’s current political state. I have always wondered about the moral dilemma of acting as a criminal defendant for someone that the defender knows to be guilty. Judge Miller explained the situation to me in a way that made sense- even if he knows his client is guilty, his job is to ensure that his client is not found guilty without proper evidence and receives the lowest sentencing possible. I thought the most interesting part of the night was when Judge Miller told the story of his first case- a young black man who did something wrong- he had an unlicensed gun in his possession. However, as Judge Miller explains, when you look closer at what occurred, the young man was really in a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the biases of the police officers who pulled him over. Situations like this are why criminal defense lawyers are so important. I also really appreciated Judge Miller’s explanation of the 25th amendment and how it could theoretically be used to impeach President Donald Trump. I am currently pre-med, so it was nice to have a change and hear a talk about government and law.
Rose Scholars Fall 2018
Endless possibilities
Although I was not in attendance at this Rose Cafe, it sounds as if you learned a lot about the legal system and were able to get an inside look into the mind of a criminal defense attorney. I like how you point out that Judge Miller’s job as a criminal defense attorney, even if he knows his client is guilty, is to represent his client so that he or she is not found guilty without substantial evidence and so that he or she, if convicted, gets a small sentence. As a future attorney, I hope to be like Judge Miller by representing my future clients to the best of my ability and by ensuring they receive the best possible legal representation.
I found Judge Miller’s story about his first trial as a defense attorney incredibly interesting as well, as I have also often considered how defense attorneys grapple with the potential moral dilemmas to which their job will inevitably give rise. I think that Judge Miller’s insightful realization that just because someone has committed some terrible act does not mean that he or she must necessarily be defined by that act also provides clarity to that dilemma. I think that when people realize that one bad action is not necessarily a sign of evil, it is easier to take a step back and critically evaluate the evidence of a case without viewing the facts of a case through a lens of biased assumptions.