On Thursday, October 23, 2025, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) revealed formal charges against Judge Bronwyn Miller of the Third District Court of Appeal, alleging violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. The charges stem from a series of text message exchanges between Judge Miller and Eleventh Judicial Circuit State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle regarding the State of Florida vs. Corey Smith case.

The JQC’s Investigative Panel determined probable cause exists to charge Miller with violating Canons 1, 2A, 3B(9), and 5A(1)-(6) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. These canons pertain to maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary, promoting public confidence in the judiciary, avoiding nonpublic comments that could interfere with a fair trial, and ensuring extra-judicial activities do not cast doubt on a judge’s impartiality or demean the judicial office.

The charges are rooted in Judge Miller’s involvement in the post-conviction litigation of Corey Smith, who was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder in 2004. Miller was part of the original prosecution team as an assistant state attorney. In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court remanded Smith’s death sentence for a new penalty phase, leading to further legal proceedings.

In January 2024, Smith’s lawyers filed a motion to disqualify the Eleventh Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office, alleging that the original prosecution team, including Miller, provided improper incentives to witnesses. Miller considered these allegations false and an attack on her integrity.

Following the filing of the motion to disqualify, State Attorney Rundle contacted Miller, seeking permission to share her personal cellphone number with Assistant State Attorney Michael Von Zamft, who was assigned to the post-conviction litigation. This led to a series of text message exchanges between Miller and Rundle, which form the basis of the JQC’s charges.

After testifying as a fact witness in February 2024, Miller continued to communicate with Rundle about the case. These communications included expressing concerns about Judge Andrea Wolfson, who was presiding over the post-conviction litigation, and criticizing the State Attorney’s Office’s handling of the case. Miller also disapproved of the certiorari petition’s adoption of Judge Wolfson’s factual findings regarding her hearing testimony.

The JQC alleges that Miller attempted to influence the State Attorney’s Office’s handling of the post-conviction litigation through these communications. The JQC further contends that Miller disparaged other judges, attorneys, and criminal defense lawyers in her texts.

The JQC asserts that Miller’s conduct casts reasonable doubt on her capacity to act impartially as a judge, undermines her appearance of integrity and impartiality, demeans the judicial office, interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties, and appears to be coercive.

Miller has the right to file a written answer to the charges within twenty days of service of the notice.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.