Steven N. Gosney
[email protected]
Florida BAR# 0180830
From: Steven N. Gosney, Esq. [email protected]
To: Judicial Qualification Commission (JQC ) c/o Henry M. Coxe III [email protected]
RE: Statement on JQC Complaint against Hon. Bronwyn Miller
My name is Steven N. Gosney. I am a Florida lawyer practicing law since 1999 and a lifelong Florida resident. The Complaint against the Honorable Judge Bronwyn Miller contains allegations to which I have personal knowledge of and in which I feel obliged to respond.
The JQC, nor anyone from the Florida BAR, ever contacted me prior to including my situation in their Complaint against Judge Miller. The Complaint, in paragraphs 36-39, implies that Judge Miller’s comments led directly to my termination. Had I been able to comment, I would have stated that the defamatory article in The Miami Herald was mistakenly believed by many in the legal community, and this widespread belief led to my being terminated. Judge Miller was just like so many who believed the falsehoods in the article. She reacted just as many others had. This group included the Florida Association of Women’s Lawyers and FACDL, as well as members of the BAR generally. Judge Miller was no different than everyone else who commented on my situation based solely on the defamatory article.
What I would like to add is that Bronwyn Miller is the ONLY person who has, since my termination from the Miami-Dade SAO, apologized for misjudging me and commenting about me. NO ONE ELSE has done this. Many others commented anonymously to each other, sharing and commenting behind my back and without taking accountability for their words. The cancel culture mob destroyed my career in criminal law under the blanket of anonymity. When I was under siege because of the toxic poison being spread about me anonymously and behind my back, Bronwyn Miller’s kindness helped me through a very dark time.
For the JQC and Florida BAR to use my situation as a weapon against a good person – an Honorable Judge – a dedicated public servant – and someone who alone stepped forward to give me a light in the face of depression - feels like I am being victimized again. I am asking, as a matter of compassion, for the JQC and anyone else, to disregard paragraphs 36-39 of the JQC complaint. I want no part of hurting someone of Judge Miller’s character and accomplishments.
As to the remaining allegations, I would like to offer up some insights as a former State employee, a former Assistant State Attorney, as a former Assistant Public Defender, and as a current member of the Florida BAR who is Board Certified in Criminal Trial. I also served on the 7th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) screening candidates for judicial office.
As the Complaint states, Canon 3B(9) provides, in pertinent part: “A judge shall not, while a litigation is pending or impending in any court . . . make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”
The Complaint states, in paragraph 17, that [after Bronwyn Miller’s factual testimony in the Corey Smith resentencing case] “unless further fact issues pertaining to you arose, your participation should have ended, leaving the handling of the post-conviction litigation to the State Attorney’s Office.” I do not agree with this statement. Bronwyn Miller’s duty to participate did not end with her testimony. If Bronwyn Miller’s participation should not have ended, then the later communications coming afterwords are a matter of right and duty, and all the allegations in the Complaint that stem from this incorrect premise should be disregarded. These communications are the essence of the Complaint’s allegations contained within paragraphs 19 through 34.
Judge Miller rightfully disqualified herself as a Judge from any contact with the Corey Smith case. Thus, she would not hear, nor decide any issue surrounding that case as a judge.
She was instead a critical source of knowledge for the State Attorney’s Office to understand the case many years later. Bronwyn Miller owed a duty to make sure that the re-opening and re-hearing of the facts and circumstances of the case were based on facts and not speculation or inaccuracies. This is a rare situation for any person, and that point should be fully considered before harshly judging Bronwyn Miller’s communications.
Further, the Complaint states, “unless further fact issues pertaining to you arose.” Yet Bronwyn Miller is in exactly the position to advise about what happened those many years ago in the prosecution of Corey Smith. These fact issues “arose” when she reviewed statements that struck her as incorrect. When “facts” were floated in the case that she knew to be incorrect, she had a duty to advise the State of these inaccuracies. Her comments were precisely directed to make sure the proceedings were fair – that the fidelity to truth was adhered to. Bronwyn Miller was intimately involved in the prosecution of Corey Smith. Bronwyn Miller was in an unusual but critical position to make sure the proceedings were illuminated by her experiences.
Thus, because the statement in the Complaint that “your participation should have ended” is incorrect, Bronwyn Miller’s communications to the State Attorney’s Office contained within paragraphs 19 through 34 of the Complaint should not be sanctionable.
The context of Judge Miller’s comments must further be viewed in the context of the challenges of public servants facing the most evil situations humanity can devise. Ms. Miller was, in her early career, part of the prosecution team for a gang leader who terrorized the Liberty City community for years. Mr. Smith and his minions threatened prosecutor Miller, as well as witnesses and the general public. Many vicious murders, leaving behind loss and pain, were committed by Mr. Smith.
Do we remember the names of the victims? Leon Hadley, Cynthia Brown, Jackie Pope, Angel Wilson, and Melvin Lipscomb, or Marlon Beneby? Or perhaps the New Year's Eve 1997 shooting of Miami police officer Ricky Taylor? Or perhaps the countless victims of the drug dealing the John Doe gang engaged in? Or the circle of families of these casualties in the drug war? Be assured that the facts of each death are brutal and gruesome. People (including Attorneys) working in the criminal justice system must confront this pain directly. Just as a small insight into the evil that practitioners in criminal law have to experience, let’s take a moment to read the details of the Cynthia Brown murder:
“Cynthia Brown died from asphyxia after being smothered by a pillow in a room at the Tradewinds Motel at 4525 Southwest 8th Street. Brown checked into the hotel with her boyfriend Chazre Davis on the evening of July 23, 1998, and her body was found at midday the next day. Brown's and Davis's prints were found on a mirror in the motel room. The medical examiner testified that Brown had petechial hemorrhages in her eyes, inside her upper lip, and on her epiglottis. Brown had small abrasions under her left nostril and on her upper lip. Her lungs were full of fluid due to pulmonary edema. She also had postmortem cuts on the left side of her neck. The bed pillow had small smears of blood on the right side from Brown's face, which was consistent with the small abrasions on her face. The medical examiner stated that all of these findings were consistent with death from asphyxia caused by being smothered with the bed pillow.” See Corey SMITH, v. STATE of Florida, No. SC05-703. (Fla. March 19, 2009) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-supreme-court/1036744.html
Assistant State Attorney Bronwyn Miller was part of the prosecution team that brought Mr. Smith to justice. The battles to accomplish this task no doubt left a mark on Ms. Miller’s conscience, as a human being with compassion for other human beings. Unfortunately, also part of the team was Assistant State Attorney Von Zamft, whose actions ultimately resulted in a great reduction in sentence for Mr. Smith. He could not be relied upon for insights into the long-ago prosecution.
It is with this knowledge that Judge Miller cared about what happens in the Corey Smith case. She was there. She was a fact witness to the prosecution of Corey Smith. She knows where the facts are, and how and where the tainted evidence and unethical conduct of her fellow assistant State Attorney affected the case. The highest ethical standards that apply to prosecutors should be a quest for the truth. It was from this fidelity to truth that her comments on page 12 of the Complaint (paragraph 33) were derived. These passionate comments, in my opinion, stem from an insistence that the facts are not misrepresented, and that any such misrepresentations are corrected.
The Complaint seeks to interpret the passion in the texts in light of Canon 5. As the Complaint recites, Canon 5 provides:
“A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not: 1. cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; 2. undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; 3. demean the judicial office; 4. interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties; 5. lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; or 6. appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.”
Yet these determinations are implicitly allegations of public image – how a judge is perceived. When those perceptions are shaped by slanted newspaper reporting, are we to follow those misperceptions regardless of the truth? Are we, as members of the BAR, ceding important judgments to popular opinion shaped by powerful mainstream media interests? The JQC standard cannot be a public popularity contest.
Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 and 48 quote the Miami Herald, which then repeats quotes from zealous advocates for defendants, such as Mr. Smith. This media source is not a proper basis for discipline against a judge. In fact, the JQC (in paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 48) is making the same mistake Judge Miller did when initially believing the biased Miami Herald. You have further followed Judge Miller’s mistake by failing to contact myself before repeating these allegations in writing in your Complaint. Your Complaint merely parrots the Miami Herald’s reporting, which you then believed at the time to be factually correct. Paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 48 are not a statement of fact, and therefore these paragraphs of the Complaint should be disregarded.
As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Attorney, I have practiced in many Courtrooms and before many judges. I have been blessed to have practiced in front of, and been mentored by, some of the best judges in the State – including most significantly the late judge Richard O. Watson of St. Augustine. I have also had the displeasure of practicing on front of some of the worst judges in the State. I am a witness to a judge’s bias that led directly to the wrongful conviction and ten-year incarceration of an innocent person. I can say without hesitation that the quality of judging in the State of Florida is hit and miss. This is only an observation and used to support the point that no judges are perfect, just as no human beings are perfect. We are all flawed and bring our flawed selves into the Courtroom every day. The standard cannot be the hypothetical (and imaginary) perfect judge. See Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice. 1999. ISBN 0684864630.
I am not one to pull punches against rogue judicial conduct. See Gosney, Steven, 'What Are My Chances on Appeal?' Comparing Full Appellate Decisions to Per Curiam Affirmances (August 20, 2017). THE JOURNAL OF APPELLATE PRACTICE AND PROCESS, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall 2017), https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol18/iss2/2, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3770217
Nor do I shy away from criticisms of prosecutors. See Gosney, Steven, Trial Techniques for a Florida Prosecutor -- A Positive Prescription for Ethical Closing Arguments (Aug 20, 18). American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Vol. 42, No. 151, 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3816895
However, we must temper our criticism of each other with humility and careful, reasoned contemplation. See Justice Thomas and The Litany of Humility: “That having been humbled, I have every reason to be humble.” https://www.churchpop.com/justice-clarence-thomas-reveals-his-favorite-catholic-prayer-for-sanctity-in-notre-dame-speech/
As I stated in the opening of this statement, I pray that paragraphs 36-39 are disregarded. Following that, there is no question that Judge Miller would not decide on any issue regarding the Corey Smith case. As discussed above, her duties towards the process continued beyond what the Complaint assumes, and thus paragraphs 19 through 34 of the Complaint should not be sanctionable. Because public popularity and perception is unreliable and flawed as outlined above, paragraphs 45, 46, 47, and 48 should also be disregarded. What we are left with is a former prosecutor, who has intimate knowledge of a most serious case, who cared. This should not be found as a fault by this JQC.
Sincerely,
Steven N. Gosney
CC: Hon. Bronwyn Miller c/o Warren W. Lindsey [email protected]
Brian T. Coughlin [email protected]
Alexander J. Williams [email protected]