Last week the Rose Scholars were visited by the Honorable Scott Miller, the presiding judge in the City of Ithaca. As soon as he began telling us a bit about his background, it was clear that this would be an entertaining and enjoyable discussion. He gave off a very confident yet inviting energy as he talked to us about his experiences as a criminal defense attorney for fifteen years and as a judge for five years.

Having a job as a criminal defense attorney is something that my family never wanted me to pursue. With a Latino background, criminal defense attorneys have always been referred to as incredulous people that are defending the bad guy, which makes it seem that it is morally wrong. However, I really appreciated hearing Judge Miller’s perspective on how he defended criminals, both guilty and non-guilty over a very long time. I think that the one thing every Rose Scholar appreciated last week was Judge Miller’s honesty. He explained how he was a poor attorney when he first began working out of a small office, and picking up cases as they came to him. He explained that at the end of the day he had a job to do, and that was to make sure that his client saw the same legal rights they were entitled to as the accuser. Granted, he admitted that defending someone guilty was difficult, as was seeing them walk free sometimes, but the cases that kept him up at night were the one’s where the person was convicted wrongly because of the jury’s decision.

I could only imagine having to defend someone that has all of the cards turned against them, as well as the disapproval of an entire community at times. Also, it comes as no surprise that Judge Miller mentioned that he has been bullied, threatened, and harmed simply because he is doing his job to the best of his abilities and to the regulations of the law. It was moving to hear him speak about how he has worked very hard during his long career to perform to the standards of the law and ensure that justice is served.

I hope to attend an open trial if it happens in the near future; I think it would be really interesting to see the Ithaca courthouse as a spectator. All in all, it was a wonderful experience having him speak with us, and it goes without saying that there is a strong reason why he was elected to be called the Honorable Judge Miller.

I thoroughly enjoyed the last rose cafe with Judge Miller. One of the things which stands out even a week later is Judge Miller’s humor and his experiences as an attorney. His humor was extremely light hearted, and was unexpected especially from someone who has had to have witnessed the very bad sides of humanity, being a criminal judge. Especially the joke about the “get out of jail free card” should we (that day’s rose cafe audience) be arrested for some offense. I also enjoyed his very thoughtful responses on the excellent questions given. Particularly, his stance on how judges should not be elected, but rather appointed. I was talking about this the other day with my friend, and had come to the same conclusion that Miller had: if one is elected and has to maintain their seat, it may impact their ruling in order to maintain a good public impression. I also enjoyed hearing his stance on heroin dispensaries, especially given the fact that he probably has much more of a personal and professional insight into this issue given that he has met people who had been repeatedly arrested due to their heroin addiction. Overall, this had to be one of my favorite rose cafe’s so far, due to Judge Miller’s insights, interesting stories, and humor.

Law and justice are two words I associate with criminals, police, and drama television. In my imagination, this world is full of exciting cases, gruesome murders, and nail biting court hearings. Little did I know how this world actually plays out in reality. The defendants and victims are people whose lives have been turned upside down by the actions they have committed or been a recipient of. Despite of whether they committed the crime or not, everyone desires to be innocent, so how does one make the decision of choosing the right person to free? Well according to Jude Scott Miller, justice is based on the law and the law is supreme above anything else. No matter what a person might feel personally, the law might not always support their beliefs as it is based on fairness and constitutional principles. Judge Miller admitted that many decisions that he has made in the court room has not always resonated with his personal beliefs. He has had to follow the law and be objective, so that he could remain fair during trying circumstances.

Judge Miller mentioned how the judicial system is the glue holding the American democracy and keeping it from sliding into Fascism. With recent change in the political climate, it will be interesting to see how the federal and state courts handle cases related to immigration, racial discrimination, and gender inequality. Judges have the power to follow the law or create new laws that will serve as a precedent for future cases. I believe that every judge should treat the law with respect but also use it as an inspiration to produce new precedents that will positively and fairly affect the society that we live in. Every day, judges have to make decisions, some are easy and some are hard, but all of them follow the laws and constitutional rights that the country was founded on. Laws are supreme, but those who enact on the law, amend it, and use it to inspire future generations are truly the flag bearers of the American democracy.

Last Wednesday at the Rose Scholars’ Cafe, we discussed with Judge Scott Miller his experiences of being a judge in the area and working for the judicial system overall. In a calm and collected manner, Judge Miller spoke about a variety of dilemmas he had to face, from external issues related to crime to internal issues related to ethics.

What surprised me during the talk was the apparent amount of drug users and abusers found in the area who have been caught and tried. I suppose in our relatively safe little bubble that is Cornell’s campus we rarely have the need to ever be made aware of these problems. Judge Miller, who worked as a defense attorney for many drug users such as heroin addicts prior to becoming a judge, recounted tales of abuse and overdose due to both heroin and the synthesized and more deadly fentanyl, which is often sold under the guise of heroin. The danger of buying heroin off of the street is that it may be laced with or replaced by fentanyl, which is 10x more deadly (3 mg can kill a grown man compared to the 30 mg of lethal heroin) and primarily used as anesthetic, that is, under the careful supervision of a trained anesthesiologist. When used on the streets, fentanyl can be fatal.

A possible solution to this, brought up by Judge Miller, is safe injection sites, where addicts would be able to go to shoot up under the close supervision of a nurse. Addiction cannot be cured overnight, and the safe injection sites would serve as an intermediate between dependent addiction and full recovery. Additionally, in the case of an overdose, this supervision could mean the difference between life and death. While a viable solution, these sites cannot be supported by the law and thus cannot be supported by Judge Miller because heroin use is and will remain illegal.

As a drastically uninformed student, I was saddened to hear about such prevalent problems occurring just outside of Cornell. Hopefully we as students in the future can fight issues such as these and change our communities for the better, alongside people like Judge Miller.

Having a conversation with Judge Scott Miller was an amazing experience because I don’t often interact with people who work in the judicial system. Thus, this session was incredibly insightful into how a judge/former defense attorney operates. Television is not exactly a great depiction of real life after all. We discussed a wide variety of topics but one of the main ones was defending a client who you suspect or been told by the client that he or she is guilty. I personally believe that the attorney should always give the client the benefit of the doubt because he or she may not actually be guilty of a crime. There are different types of guilts after all: moral, survivor, legal, etc. Legal guilt is the one that is important that can only be determined in the court of law, not by an attorney. The attorney should merely play his role in the system, defending the client to the best of his or her ability. Judge Miller points out that it is arguably better to not send a guilty person to prison than to send an innocent person to prison. I think it is a good thing that our legal system tilts towards the accused because of that reason. There are consequences to this of course and I admire Judge Miller’s tenacity and will to go through this for so long. Making major decisions or being the “gatekeeper” to a decision that can irrevocably change a person’s life is an awesome and overwhelming power if not handled properly. I also enjoyed hearing him talk about the more theoretical aspects of his job, e.g., judicial elections and the correspondence effect on independence. Judges should be appointed in my opinion because it insulates them from public opinion. If an individual is qualified, then we must give him or her the tools to be successful and allowing them to be independent will be key for a functioning justice system.

I was surprised to hear that New York judges have a bit more discretion in the punishments that they hand out compared to other states but I suppose the concept of discretion makes sense if you think about it. Incarceration is most likely not the answer to all alleged crimes and there are probably more productive ways to channel an individual’s mistakes into something good. For example, they sentence them to community service or something like that. I appreciate the nuance that Judge Miller, and hopefully other judges, has when tackling and rendering a verdict on a case. Of course, the letter of the law is always obeyed, but how that verdict is meted out can differ on case-by-case basis. Being a judge is not an easy job as I discuss earlier and I think it is remarkable that they can do this day in, day out.  This was a wonderful discussion and I really enjoyed my time during the session.

The Rose Cafe with Judge Scott Miller was incredibly compelling and enlightening for me. Judge Miller is a New York State judge, and he shared with us numerous aspects of his experiences in the world of law, from being a defense attorney to his current position as a judge. He reflected on the moral dilemma that defense attorneys experience when it comes to defending individuals that have all but admitted their guilt, and he reconciled these situations by essentially being committed to the legal system and preserving its integrity. Indeed, under our law system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus a defense attorney has a duty to carry out his/her responsibilities to the best of his/her abilities. And although such dilemmas are difficult, I definitely agree that such a approach is the most fair and moral.

What amazed and impressed me the most about the Judge was his approach to his job. Judges must remain impartial and unbiased in their work, but at the same it is crucial to have integrity and a sense of morality because such elements are depended on in just about every decision, such as bail and sentencing. I could definitely sense the quality of his character, and it gave me a bit more confidence in our legal system because of the existence of judges like Judge Miller. In this vein, I believe that the legal system is the most important aspect of a functioning society, since as the Judge emphasized himself, a high-quality legal system is crucial for ensuring the morality and ethical nature of a society.

Ever since I was a little girl I wanted to be a lawyer. I joined my high school debate team and even took part in moot court competitions with this goal in mind. I made all the necessary plans to go to law school and practice as a civil or criminal lawyer.  One day when I was with my grandma she asked me “what do you want to be when you grow up?” I didn’t even need to think twice I said lawyer! She told me to be a good lawyer and then asked me “what will you do if you have to defend someone that’s guilty?” To this day I couldn’t answer this question. Therefore, I changed all my plans since the thought of letting someone guilty get away without being convicted didn’t sit well with me.

I wanted to find an answer to this question with this in mind I attended the Rose café with Justice Scott Miller, who was a judge of Tompkins county. He briefly spoke to us about his time at Cornell and how he went from being a defense attorney to a judge. Then he opened the floor to questions. This was when I decided to ask the question “does your conscious keep you awake at night when you defend someone whose guilty?” but someone else beat me to it. I was glad to find out that I wasn’t the only one troubled by this.

Justice Scott Miller said that to him after being a defense lawyer for a while and now a judge what really keeps him awake at night is when the Jury convicts an innocent person. He told us how he had defended many people who he thought were guilty. One client of his had even confessed to him that he was guilty but he still wanted to go to trial because it was his civil right to go to trial. He told us how it’s not up to the defense lawyer to decide whether the person who he knows is guilty should be convicted or not. Unless, the US government can find enough proof to convict someone they are innocent until proven guilty. He also told us how during your career as a lawyer there will be many who you think are guilty or who you know for sure is guilty that you will have to defend and some will get convicted and some won’t. But what will really keep you up at night is when you defend someone who is innocent and you know is innocent but then is convicted.

This was a good enough answer to the question I couldn’t answer for a long time. The idea that a lawyer like any other professional is simply doing their job whether they are defending an innocent party or a guilty party. It’s the job of the government to find enough proof to convict someone whether they are guilty or not.

Dear Julia,

First off, I know what you’re thinking, “What a surprise–Robert picked the event with someone talking about the law.” Look at this from my perspective though, how would I not got to an event about the law? You’ve heard me talk about my love of Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor enough at this point to know that a strong progressive judge is pretty much the coolest thing you can be in my book, so I was excited to see where Judge Miller would fit in coolness-wise. And on that note Julia, I’m happy to report he indeed really cool. Miller mentioned that he was the first judge in NY state to rule on whether or not a police officer who smells marijuana on an individual can stop and frisk them. (Naturally I thought about or conversation about the penumbra of privacy in the Constitution and its amendments earlier this week.) Beyond that though, he just was a really personable and interesting guy. He talked a lot about the ethical issues he’s faced and the guilt that comes both from successfully defending people who admit to their guilt and failing to defend people he knows to be innocent. What I thought was most admirable though was how much passion, optimism, and excitement he had about his role in the legal system. I hope I find that same gratification when I finish law school too.

This Wednesday I was able to attend the talk by Honorable Judge Miller, who is very humorous and easygoing. I have to confess that I watch a lot of law and order dramas and I am really interested in this topic.

During the talk, Judge Miller discussed about some dilemmas he has faced as a judge and previously as a defense attorney. One of the most interesting topics was defending clients that are inconsistent with his beliefs. I learned that as a defense attorney, you still have to do your job and protect your client, even though there is substantial evidence against your client or your client confides to you that they are guilty. When questioned that if he would feel bad if the confided client ends up without a guilty verdict, Judge Miller made three points. Firstly, there is a distinction between moral guilt and legal guilt–knowing someone is morally guilty does not make that person legally guilty. Second of all, convicting innocent people keeps him up at night more than letting go of possible criminals; as Thomas Jefferson once said, “It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail”. Finally, the rule of thumb–people are innocent until proven guilty–suggests that the legal system in the U.S. is designed to convict fewer suspects.

We also engaged in the discussion of drug use and safe injection sites. I learned that the ban on drugs only results in more illegal activities and health issues . Safe injection sites, in particular, provide medical help to drug users and promote rehabilitation programs. Yet as a judge, Miller cannot support those sites. Personally, I agree with the idea behind safe injection sites and I believe that when prohibition is not effective in protecting lives, it is important to try from another perspective. Moreover, I know that while drugs have lots of negative impacts on one’s health, medical cannabis can be used to treat veterans with PTSD and people with epilepsy. I think that more researches should be conducted on the subject of cannabis in order to better regulate its uses.

In short, I have benefited a lot from this talk. I hope I could attend more talks by Judge Miller in the future Rose Cafe series.

This week’s Rose Cafe featured Ithaca City Judge Scott Miller- an alum of both Cornell undergrad and law school! It was a fascinating talk that discussed a variety of extremely diverse, controversial and incredibly interesting topics, from the debate over free injection centers for drug users, to the emotions of a judge when sentencing.

An interesting topic discussed that I had never given much thought to was the debate over if judges should be elected or appointed. I honestly had never even thought about how judges come into their position, let alone debated which method would be better, and hearing the Judge’s opinion on this was really interesting. I really agreed with the Judge that “judges should be separate from the political process” and that Judges should not be worrying about pleasing voters, but be focusing on maintaining integrity in the judicial system.

Another area we talked about was whether cities should have centers to provide drug addicts with free, clean needles and a space with nurses and medical care to inject themselves with drugs. While at first this sounded absurd to me, what the Judge said definitely changed my mind a lot, about how such a center would help with harm addiction and that you can’t change an addict overnight, so you may as well save the lives of people who are still addicts. After all, the drug wars showed us that simply incarcerating people and leaving them to die in jail isn’t a solution either. In my opinion, such centers should exist, provided that the drug users are also in a rehabilitation program and that the needles are just being used so that users don’t go cold turkey and instead start slowly reducing their consumption (while consuming in a medically safe space) and slowly recovering from their addiction.

I think another really interesting take away I got out of the talk was that it is better than 9 guilty people go free, than one innocent person be sentenced. I thought the Judge’s story about an innocent, mentally disabled woman being convicted of murder was truly heartbreaking and really illustrated his point.

In general, this was a fascinating talk which brought out a lot of really interesting debates and discussions.

Tonight’s Rose Café featured the Ithaca City judge. It was interesting to have a some-what informal discussion with someone who you would normally see on the bench wearing a robe. The judge talked about some of his experiences as a defense attorney and now as a judge in a state criminal court. He also discussed the effects of judicial elections on the independence of the judiciary.

At the end of his talk he said that his court is in session on Wednesdays and Fridays. I would be interested in attending because I have never witnessed proceedings in a criminal court. Last year, I observed oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court and was fascinated by the process. I was not familiar with much of the legal nuances that were debated, but I enjoyed hearing all the Justices except one ask thoughtful and pointed questions of lawyers. I was also amazed by the lawyers’ ability to quickly respond and cite relevant cases, amicus curiae briefs, and exhibits as if the information was written on the back of their hand. I was also surprised by Justice Thomas, he appeared to take a nap during the arguments, but he might have just been closing his eyes and sitting still.

Last year I received a summons to be on a grand jury. The jury would have meet once a week for a number of months. I was probably one of the few who was excited to receive such a notice because I would have enjoyed learning about the system from a new perspective. I had to write to the court and let them know that I could not serve on the jury because I go to school in Ithaca which is far away from Trenton were the courthouse is. I’m sure I will have another opportunities to have jury duty.

I also appreciated hearing the Judge’s perspective on sentencing. He mentioned the deliberation and psychological impact of sentencing a person to incarceration. I cannot imagine having that type of power over another individual. I fully understand why the judge would say sentencing is the most difficult aspect of his job.

One question that I have pondered over for a while is how an attorney can live with themselves after defending someone that they know to be guilty. At tonight’s Rose Cafe with the Honorable Scott Miller, I had the opportunity to ask this question.

Judge Miller has served as a state judge in the Ithaca City Court and Tompkins County Court for the past six years, and before that he was a criminal defense attorney. In this role, he defended criminals who had overwhelming evidence against them or who had confessed to him privately that they had committed the crime. The law states that attorneys are not allowed to reveal any confidential information that the defendant shares with them, so he could not tell the jury that his client was guilty. He has had cases where he was sure that his client would be found guilty but the jury found them not guilty.

He brought up an example of a case where he was the defense attorney, The People vs. Eunice Baker, in which a young woman was found guilty of the murder of a 3 year old child who she was babysitting. Judge Miller knew that the woman was innocent but the jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life. She was released after 4 years by The New York State Court of Appeals. He found it much harder to deal with the fact that an innocent client was in jail than to know that a guilty client was on the streets.

Our judicial system is set up to protect the innocent, and in doing so, there will always be guilty people who are set free, since no judicial system can be 100% effective in figuring out who is guilty. If every guilty person was found guilty, there would be many more innocent people serving life imprisonment or ending up on death row. Thanks to Judge Miller’s discussion tonight, I have a much greater appreciation for the attorneys who defend people who have overwhelming evidence against them, because everyone deserves a chance, and every effort possible should be made to ensure that innocent people are not found guilty.