The last Friday Film with Judge Miller was really interesting, because we stopped part way of the film in order to discuss whether or not the lawyer was manipulating the defendant to say that he was guilty of a crime.  I thought that this discussion was interesting as it demonstrated the power of framing- the ability to change people’s mind of whether they have committed the crime or not just by how the lawyer is able to frame their options. In that regard, this discussion shed light on the challenges lawyers face, because if they do not adapt to their audience of defendants in a specific manner, the defendants will not give them the response they need to win the case. Although lawyers have a duty to always support the righteousness, the film shed light on the flimsy boundary between right and wrong actions, which can make it challenging for lawyers to decide what to do in these types of situations. Lawyers do want to win cases, however if they change how the data is presented to fit a certain frame, are they going against their duties? The film also shed light on the challenges with personal morality and duty: If criminal lawyers want to win, they must set their own feelings aside. However, to what degree should personal morals guide people or must lawyers just completely forget about their morals when dealing with these types of cases? In that regard, it may seem that lawyers have to live in complete contradiction of themselves  as times. Judge Miller also mentioned the challenges when defendants lie about their circumstances. It would be interesting to evaluate if there is a playbook on how to tell if defendants are lying so that lawyers would not have to waste their energy. Or in some cases do lawyers not care whether their defendants lie since lawyers may want to spin a story that they can tell best?  This discussion was intriguing on getting to understand the complex decision making that defense lawyers must make on a daily basis.