Brace yourselves, justice watchers—a Florida appeals court judge is under fire as a state commission slams her with formal charges for allegedly tainting her impartiality in a high-stakes death penalty case.
On October 24, 2025, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) announced charges against Third District Court of Appeal Judge Bronwyn Miller, accusing her of undermining her judicial independence and demeaning her office through text exchanges with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle regarding the resentencing of a convicted murderer she prosecuted decades ago, a case that could ultimately be decided by the Florida Supreme Court, as NBC Miami reports.
Let’s start from the beginning: Judge Miller, who served as a Miami-Dade prosecutor from 1997 to 2005, was involved in the original prosecution of Corey Smith, a reputed leader of a violent Liberty City drug gang, convicted of multiple first-degree murders and sentenced to death in 2005. In 2017, the state supreme court mandated a resentencing for Smith, sparking defense allegations that Miller and the original team offered favors to witnesses to secure testimony against him, as noted by the JQC panel. It’s a messy backstory that raises serious questions about past practices.
Fast forward to January 2024, when Smith’s defense moved to disqualify all prosecutors from Rundle’s office, prompting a series of text messages between Miller and Rundle that the JQC found cast doubt on Miller’s ability to remain impartial. The panel determined these exchanges undermined her integrity, demeaned her judicial role, and appeared coercive, potentially interfering with fair proceedings. In a culture obsessed with narrative over ethics, isn’t it refreshing to see a commission call out such boundary-crossing behavior?
At a February 2024 hearing on the disqualification motion, Miller testified, after which Circuit Judge Andrea Wolfson removed two key prosecutors from the case citing possible witness testimony manipulation, both past and present. Miller, displeased, texted Rundle that the state’s motion to reconsider was “extremely weak” and urged that Wolfson be disqualified to revisit all rulings, as per the JQC findings. When Wolfson stood firm, Miller later recused herself from the related appeal but continued venting to Rundle, labeling the rulings as flawed and absurd.
Miller didn’t stop there; in May 2024, she messaged Rundle about a blog post on the issue, warning, “You need to figure out how you are going to handle it or you will allow rumors to destroy us all. My reputation is all I have and I am going to become a casualty of a failure to take a stance.” While her concern for reputation is understandable, shouldn’t a judge prioritize judicial restraint over personal optics, especially in a case this grave?
The JQC concluded that Miller attempted to sway how the state attorney’s office managed the post-conviction process, suggesting her communications could be seen as coercive and disruptive to a fair trial. Miller has 20 days to respond to these charges, and if the JQC pushes forward, the Florida Supreme Court will decide her fate on the bench overseeing appeals from Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s a pivotal moment for judicial accountability.
Meanwhile, the Smith case evolved: by November 2024, the state abandoned its pursuit of the death penalty as support weakened, and by February 2025, prosecutors settled on reduced charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter, carrying a 30-year sentence. Smith already faces a 60-year federal sentence for his role in the violent John Does gang. It’s a significant downgrade, but one wonders if earlier judicial overreach muddied the waters of justice.
Miller self-reported the issue to the JQC in June 2024, offering sworn statements and denying wrongdoing, claiming her intent was “to ensure justice was served,” as per her testimony. That’s a noble aim, but when texts suggest meddling, it’s hard to square that with impartiality. In a world where progressive narratives often excuse oversteps as passion, this case demands a hard look at where lines must be drawn.
Her attorney, Warren Lindsey, defended her actions, stating, “Does not stem from her work on the bench, but rather her full, appropriate, and lawful cooperation with the state attorney’s office in postconviction proceedings in a case involving Corey Smith, a mass murderer who terrorized Liberty City for years. [Miller] did not surrender her First Amendment right to speak with an official on an issue of grave importance both to her safety and the safety of her community.” While free speech matters, shouldn’t judicial ethics trump personal expression when public trust is at stake?
Lindsey also praised Miller’s record, noting she “has served this community in an exemplary, respected and ethical manner for more than 28 years, including over 20 years as a judge.” That’s a long tenure, appointed through county and circuit courts before reaching the Third District Court of Appeal in 2018 under Gov. Rick Scott. Yet, longevity doesn’t erase the need for scrutiny when evidence suggests overreach.
The JQC’s findings aren’t just a technicality—they highlight a breach that could lead to frequent disqualifications for Miller, undermining her effectiveness. Public confidence in the judiciary isn’t a woke luxury; it’s a cornerstone of law and order. If reasonable folks see coercion in her actions, that’s a problem no spin can fix.
As this unfolds, Miller’s career hangs in balance, a reminder that even seasoned judges aren’t above accountability. Her rise from prosecutor to appellate judge shows ambition, but ambition must bow to ethics. Let’s hope the process prioritizes justice over personal narratives.
This case isn’t just about one judge—it’s about ensuring the system remains untainted by personal agendas, a principle often sidelined in today’s excuse-laden culture. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could set a precedent for judicial conduct statewide. It’s high time for clarity on where passion ends and impropriety begins.
Ultimately, the integrity of our courts must prevail, whether Miller is vindicated or removed. With serious allegations of witness manipulation and coercive texts on the table, the public deserves answers, not deflection. Let’s keep the focus on fair play, not on rewriting rules for the well-connected.
