William Thomas Zeigler, Jr. v. State of Florida

SC05-1333

OKAY.THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDARTHIS MORNING IS ZIEGLER,VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA.HELLO, FOLKS.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,THIS IS AN APEL FROM THEDENIAL OF A MOTION FORZZ##$$ POST-CONVICTION RELEASE BYDEATH ROW INMATE TOMMY ZIEGLERAND I REPRESENT HIM AS I DIDIN THE COURT BELOW FOR THELAST 16 YEARS AND THE COURTBELOW HELD AN EVIDENTIARYHEARING AND THE RESULT OF DNATESTING WE PERFORMED ONCERTAIN PIECES OF EVIDENCE,CLOTHING, EVIDENCE IN THECASE.AT THE STATE'S REQUEST THECOURT BELOW ENTERED AN ORDERTHAT LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THEHEARING TO ONLY THOSE DNARESULTS AND THE TESTIMONYDIRECTLY RELATED TO IT.
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THEDNA TESTING THAT YOU DID.WAS THE SCOPE OF THAT DIRECTEDBY YOU OR BY THE STATE OR BYTHE COURT OR...
IT -- IT WAS A COMBINEDEFFORT, AND WE GOT THEORIGINAL ORDER FROM THE COURT,TO SEEK THE EVIDENCE FORTESTING AND THE STATEBARGAINED FOR AND RECEIVED THERIGHT TO DESIGNATE ANYADDITIONAL ITEMS IT WANTED FORTESTING.THE DECISION AS TO WHAT PARTSOF THE CLOTHING TO TEST WEREDONE IN A JOINT TELEPHONECONFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATEDEFENSE AND LAB CORPSTECHNICIAN WHO WAS SUGGESTINGAREAS ON WHICH HE BELIEVEDWE'D BE PROVIDED WITH THE BESTRESULTS.
BUT THERE WERE NO AREASTHAT YOU WANTED TO TEST THATWERE NOT TESTED OR WERE THERE?
WE BELIEVE WE WERE TESTINGALL THE AREAS WE NEEDED TOTEST, JUSTICE QUINCE.THERE WAS SOME QUESTION WHENIT CAME BACK WITH REGARDWHETHER WE GOT AS FAR INTO THEHEAVY STAINED AREA AS WE WOULDHAVE LIKED TO HAVE GOTTEN.WE WERE BELIEVED WHEN WE DEALTWITH LAB CORPS WE WERE GOINGTO GET DIRECTLY INTO THE MOSTHEAVILY STAINED PARTS OF THEUNDER ARM OF THE OUTER SHIRT.THE STATE CRITICIZED US ANDBELIEVES WE DID NOT GO DEEPENOUGH INTO THAT AREA.THAT WAS WHAT WE BELIEVED WEWERE ARRANGING WITH LAB CORPSAT THE TIME.
NOW THE ORIGINAL PURPOSEFOR THIS REQUEST AND THE GRANT,WAS IT FOR CLEMENCY PURPOSES.
IT WAS, YOUR HONOR AND WEDID NOT HAVE A RULE IN PLACEIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THATPERMED IT TO BE DONE FORJUDICIAL PURPOSES AND WE WERENOT IN A POSITION TO BE ABLETO BRING IN A COURT OF LAW.THE PREVIOUS COURT IN 1995,HAD PRECLUDED US FROM DOING ITFOR THE COURTS AND WE WERE ATTHAT TIME IN A SITUATION WEWERE AWAITING THE 11thCIRCUIT'S DECISION ON WHETHEROR NOT WE WOULD GET ACERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITYFROM HAVING LOST IN THEFEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ANDBELIEVED CLEMENCY PROCEEDINGSCOULD BE IMMINENT AND WETHOUGHT IT ONLY PRUDENT TO GETOUR DUCKS IN A ROW, SO TOSPEAK AND BE READY TO PRESENTTHE GOVERNOR IN WE WERE INTHAT SITUATION.OF COURSE, SUBSEQUENT TO THATTHE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THECOURT BOTH PROMULGATEDPROCEEDINGS BY WHICH THEEVIDENCE COULD BE BROUGHT IN ACOURT OF LAW AND ASRESPONSIBLE ADVOCATES WEBELIEVE THAT IT WAS OUROBLIGATION TO DO THAT FOR OURCLIENT, FOR JUDICIALDETERMINATION.WE HAVE TWO FORMS OF RELIEFWE'VE AREQUESTED, THE FIRSTFIRST IS OUT RIGHT REVERSAL OFTHE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISIONAND AS DEFINED BY THE COURTBELOW ERRED IN NOT GRANTINGOUR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ANDTO GRANT THAT RELIEF BY THEBOARD AND THE SECOND ANALTERNATE RELIEF IS WE'D ASKFOR A REMAND FOR FURTHERPROCEEDINGS AND ASK THAT THECOURT FIND THAT THE COURTBELOW ERRED IN LIMITING THESCOPE OF THE EVIDENTIARYHEARING AND BASED THIS ON THEFACT THAT THE COURT REVERSEDTHE SAME JUDGE ENTERING THESAME ORDER OF HITCHCOCK IN ANUNPUBLISHED ORDER AND BELIEVEIT FOR THE SAME REASONSMR. ZIEGLER IS ENTITLED TO ANEX--- EXPANSIVE HEARING ASMR. HITCHCOCK WAS AND SECONDLYWE'D SUGGEST GIVEN SOME OF THEISSUES THAT WERE RAISED THETESTING OF THE EVIDENCE WOULDBE APPROPRIATE ANDPARTICULARLY TESTING WITHREGARD TO THE OUTER SHIRT ANDCERTAIN SPOTS THE STATE TRIEDTO CLAIM AT THE EVIDENTIARYHEARING WHICH THE JUDGEACCEPTED, AS A CONSEQUENCE OFTHE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, HADSIGNIFICANCE TO THE CASE WHICHHAD NEVER BEEN TESTED AND, INFACT, UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY TESTTHEM, THEY CANNOT TAKE ON THESIGNIFICANCE THE COURTCONFERRED ON THEM.
LET ME ASK YOU ON THISISSUE, WE HAD SAID IN THEZIEGLER OPINION FROM --
'95.
'95.RIGHT.THAT EVEN IF WE FIND -- EVENIF THE DNA RESULTS COMPORTEDWITH THE SCENARIO MOSTFAVORABLE TO ZIEGLER HE WOULDNOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THEEVIDENCE WOULD HAVE PROBABLYPRODUCED AN ACQUITTAL.WHAT DO WE DO WITH THATSTATEMENT AND HOW IS IT THATYOU HAVE NOW SHOWN SUCHCOMPELLING DNA RESULTS THATWOULD CAUSE US TO RECEIVE FROMTHAT STATEMENT THAT I GUESS ISPART OF THE LAW OF THE CASE?
WELL, YOUR HONOR I'M NOTSURE REALLY -- I THINK ITWOULD BE BEST CHARACTERIZED INDICTA THAT WENT ALONG WITH THERULING BASED ON PRO SEARED DOYOU RECALL BARS -- AND FORTHAT REASON AS WELL AND IT WASALSO MADE WITHOUT A FACTUALRECORD.AND IT WAS BASED ONSUPPOSITIONS THAT WERE CURRENTAT THE TIME.
LET'S GO AND -- YOU KNOW,I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE-- WHICH DNA IS WHERE.BUT I DON'T REALLY -- I'MHAVING A HARD TIME -- ANDMAYBE YOU CAN TELL US, WHATWOULD YOU SAY IS THE MOSTCOMPELLING ASPECT OF THE DNAEVIDENCE THAT REALLY, IF THEJURY HEARS THIS, HAS ASIGNIFICANT QUESTION AS TOWHETHER HE IS THE PERPETRATOROF -- DO YOU HAVE TO SHOW ALLOF THE MURDER -- IN OTHERWORDS, ARE YOU TRYING TO SAYHE WASN'T THE MURDERER OF ANYOF THESE VICTIMS AND SO IF YOUCOULD CLARIFY THAT.
THE MOST COMPELLINGEVIDENCE AND, YOU KNOW, AS FARAS WITH ALL THE DIFFERENTVICTIMS WHICH -- DOES ITAFFECT ALL OF THOSECONVICTIONS.
WELL, YOUR HONOR THIS ISTRULY IN FOR A PENNY AND FOR APOUND TYPE OF CASE, WHICH ISIF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE --BELIEVE ZIEGLER COMMITTED ANYOF THE MURDERS, IF YOU BELIEVEHE COMMITTED NOT ANYPARTICULAR ONE OF THEM, THENYOU BELIEVE HE DIDN'T COMMITANY OF THEM, BECAUSE IF YOUDON'T BUY THE ELABORATE THEORYTHIS STATE PUT TOGETHER THATTHE MURDERS ARE ALL CONNECTEDAND HAVE THIS RELATIONSHIP,THEN ARE NOT GOING TO BUY THATZIEGLER, WHO HAD NO REASONWHATSOEVER TO COMMIT THESECRIMES AND HAS BEEN ANINCREDIBLE CASE TO BEGIN WITH,COMMITTED ANY OF THEM.THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCEIN THIS CASE IS THE BLOOD ONCHARLIE MAYS' PANTS AND ISCOMPELLING FOR SEVERAL REASONSAND THE FIRST, THE PLACEMENTOF THAT BLOOD.PERRY EDWARDS' BLOOD APPEARSON CHARLIE MAYS' PANTS IN THEKNEE AREA UPWARD INTO THETHIGH AND IS NOT SOMETHINGPRODUCED BY CASUAL CONTACT,THAT WAS NOT PRODUCED BYSOMETHING ON THE FLOOR.THAT WAS A SATURATION STAINAND A SUBSTANTIAL, LARGE STAIN.
WASN'T THE EVIDENCE THATTHE TWO WERE IN CLOSEPROXIMITY.
ONLY YOUR HONOR IF YOUTHINK 15 FEET IS CLOSE AND THEOBSTACLES IN BETWEEN IT DON'TPOSE A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TOTHE FACT THAT THE BLOOD MAY BEBETWEEN THEM.THERE ARE WRAPS AND OTHERITEMS IN THE FURNITURE STOREAND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THEPHOTOS WHICH ARE PART OF THERECORD YOU WILL SEE THERE ISNOT A PHOTO THAT SHOWS YOUCHARLIE MAYS AND PERRY EDWARDSTOGETHER, NOT A NICE CLEANPHOTO YOU CAN SEE BOTH BODIESAND THERE IS NOT A GOOD ANGLEIN THE CRIME SCENE TO ALLOWYOU TO PUT THE TWO TOGETHER INA PHOTO.THERE ARE OBSTACLES ON THEFURNITURE FLOOR ANDSUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE BETWEENTHEM.THERE'S ALSO THE TESTIMONY OFTHE EXPERT, PROFESSOR MCDONALDWHO SAYS IF THE BLOOD PERRYEDWARDS, SPRAYS OUTWARD, ISDRY BY THE TIME CHARLIE MAYSIS KILLED, NOW THAT IS ASUBSTANTIAL -- SUBSTANTIALLYIMPORTANT FOR MAKING THETIMING OF THE VARIOUS MURDERS,BECAUSE MAYS' BLOOD SPATTERSOVER THE TOP OF THOSE DRIEDSPATTERS FROM PERRY NEEDS WHATWAS THE TRIAL TESTIMONY ABOUTTHE BLOOD?WAS ANY OF THE BLOOD --TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BLOODSPLATTER, WAS ANY OF ITIDENTIFIED TO PARTICULARINDIVIDUALS, BACK IN -- WHENWAS IT, 1976.
1976, YOUR HONOR.THE TESTIMONY WAS WITH REGARDTO THE -- THESE FOUR MAJORBLOOD GROUPS.IT WAS AT THAT LEVEL.ALTHOUGH, SUBTYPING WOULD HAVEBEEN A POSSIBLE TECHNOLOGY ATTHAT TIME THAT WOULD HAVEALLOWED YOU TO VERYSPECIFICALLY DISTINGUISHBETWEEN THE BLOOD, ALL THEINDIVIDUALS WHO BLED IN THATSTORE, THE STATE, SHERIFFSDEPARTMENT DID NOT CONDUCTTHAT SUBTYPING AND DID NOTREQUEST IT TO BE DONE BY THEFBI WHICH WAS RATHER SHOCKINGAND LET THE CRIME SCENE GO TOOLONG FOR THE DEFENSE TO BEABLE TO DO IT AND HELD THECRIME SCENE TOO LONG A PERIODOF TIME AND DIDN'T HAVE THEEVIDENCE IN 1976 AND HAD ITDOWN TO TWO ITEMS OFDIFFERENTIATION AND YOU KNEWWHERE TYPE A BLOOD HAD BEENSPILLED AND WHERE TYPE O BLOODHAD BEEN SPILLED AND NOW THEPROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT, YOUKNOW, FIRST THERE IS ONLY TWOAND SECONDLY, BOTH PERRYEDWARDS AND CHARLIE MAYS HADTYPE A AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW ATTHE TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE ATTHE TRIAL WHETHER IN FACT THEBLOOD ON CHARLIE MACE WHICHWAS A CAME FROM HIM, OR CAMEFROM PERRY EDWARDS.AND THE STATE OF COURSE WASNOT GOING TO CONCEDE BY ANYMEANS THAT THIS WAS PERRYEDWARDS' BLOOD.IT WAS ARGUED BY THE DEFENSEWITHOUT THE ABILITY AS WE'DHAVE TODAY TO SAY THAT REALLYIS PERRY EDWARDS' BLOOD AND WEKNOW THAT AND THERE IS NOT ANYDOUBT WHATSOEVER, THE LEVEL OFTHE DNA MATCH IS SO HIGH AS TODEFY THE IDEA THAT IT COULD BEANYONE ELSE.
WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT ATTHE TRIAL AS TO THESIGNIFICANCE OF IT BEING PERRYEDWARDS' BLOOD ON MACE?
WELL, IF PERRY EDWARDS'BLOOD IS ON MAYS WHERE IT ISLOCATED, THE BEST EXPLANATIONFOR HOW IT GETS THERE, THATTHE DEFENSE PUTS FORWARD AND ITHINK IS A VERY CONVINCING ONE,IS THAT IT HAPPENS WHENCHARLIE MAYS, KNEELS DOWN ONPERRY EDWARDS' CHEST WHILEPERRY EDWARDS IS SUFFERINGFROM A -- A GUNSHOT WOUND THATCREATED A LARGE AMOUNT OFBLOOD IN HIS CHEST AREA, ANDBEATS PERRY EDWARDS ON THEHEAD TO FINISH HIM OFF ANDTHAT IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE HOWELSE WOULD YOU COME UP WITH ABLOOD-STAIN THAT SIGNIFICANTAND SATURATED IN THE AREA OFTHE KNEE AND UPWARD ON THETHIGH --
TELL ME THEN, THIS ONE, YOUHAVE LIMITED TIME AND YOU AREFAR MORE FAMILIAR WITH DETAILSOF THE DNA.WHO -- MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE TOCOME UP WITH THIS THEORY.BUT, WHO KILLED CHARLIE MAYS?
HIS CONFEDERATES.
UNIDENTIFIED.
WE CANNOT IDENTIFY EXCEPTFOR THE TESTIMONY OFMR. ZIEGLER WHO BELIEVES THEREWAS MORE THAN ONE PERSON INTHE STORE.
AND YOU SAID EARLIER THEREWAS NO MOTIVATION FOR ZIEGLER.I THOUGHT THAT -- HAVE YOUEVER -- THE FACT THAT HE HADINCREASED HIS -- THE LIFEINSURANCE ON HIS WIFE AND THATHE HAD MADE ATTEMPTS TOACQUIRE WEAPONS, HAS THAT EVERBEEN DISPUTED OR UNDERMINED BYPOST CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS?
WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE HADCONSIDERABLE TESTIMONY ABOUTWHY THAT WAS REASONABLE ANDPRUDENT OR OFFERED TESTIMONY,WHY WAS REASONABLE AND PRUDENTFOR ZIEGLER TO INCREASE THELIFE INSURANCE THAT HE DIDBECAUSE IT HAD TO DO WITHBUSINESS DECISIONS AND THATWAS PROPER AT THE RESENTENCING,I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO SOMETHAT WAS --
A MOTIVE WHERE THERE WAS ANEXPLANATION FOR IT, IT DOESOFFER A MOTIVE, YOU SAY THATTHERE WAS NO REASON --
WELL, IN THE ABSTRACT, ITDOES, IF YOU WANT TO SAY JUSTBECAUSE YOU HAVE LIFEINSURANCE ON YOUR LIFE THEREIS A MOTIVE IN WHICH CASE, I'MIN DANGER AS MANY OF YOU MAYBE THAT YOU HAVE LIFE ON YOURSPOUSE OR BENEFICIARY AND THATIS NOT A MOTIVE, TO HAVE AMOTIVE YOU NEED A FINANCIALREWARD AND A REASON TO SEEKTHAT FINANCIAL REWARD.THAT PART OF IT IS WHAT ISMISSING AND IS -- NO SIGN THATMR. ZIEGLER HAD ANY FINANCIALDIFFICULTIES, ANY REASON TONEED THE MONEY, ANY REASONWHATSOEVER THAT HE WOULD WANTTO COLLECT ON THAT INSURANCEPOLICY.
WAS THE GUN EVER FOUND.
THERE WAS ONE OF THE GUNSTHAT WAS INVOLVED IN THEMURDERS AND THERE ARE SEVERALGUNS INVOLVED IN THE MURDERAND ONE IS FOUND IN POSSESSIONOF EDWARD WILLIAMS, WHICH ITHINK -- OUGHT TO BE POINTINGA FINGER RIGHT AWAY AT EDWARDWILLIAMS AND ONE PIECE OFEVIDENCE WE WANTED TO BRING TOTHE HEARING BELOW WAS THETESTING THAT HIS PANTS TURNEDOVER TO POLICE WHICH SHOULDHAVE SHOWN THE PRESENCE, IF HEWAS TELLING THE TRUTH, OFGUNSHOT RESIDUE AND OTHERHEAVY METALS IN POCKET, ANDRECENTLY FIRED GUN, STUCK ITINTO HIS POCKET AND TOOK ITFOR MR. ZIEGLER AND RAN FROMTHE CRIME SCENE, SUPPOSEDLYFOR HIS LIFE BECAUSE HE FEAREDMR. ZIEGLER AND HIS PANTS WERECLEAN, YOUR HONOR AND THATSUGGESTS MR. WILLIAMS TURNEDOVER HIM WITH THE INTENTION OFMISLEADING THE POLICE WHICHSUGGESTS THAT HE WAS CULPABLE,HAD SOME SORT OF CULPABILITYAND THAFTION WHAT HE WASTRYING TO HIDE.
WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCEAGAINST MR. ZIEGLER?
IS THE EVIDENCE AGAINST --YOUR HONOR, THERE IS AN --THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT RECORD.THERE IS AN ASSORTMENT OFMISCELLANEOUS WITNESSES WHOSAY THEY SAW HIM HERE OR THEREAND OTHER PEOPLE WHOCONTRADICT IT.THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE,IN THE SENSE THAT YOU BOIL IT-- EVERYTHING IS CIRCUMSTANCE,BUT FOR THE TESTIMONY OFBELTON THOMAS, EDWARD WILLIAMSAND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO --JUSTICE PARIENTE, WHO WAS --MENTIONS ABOUT BUYING A GUN.
THOSE ARE PRETTY -- THOSEARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANTWITNESSES.
AND I'LL WALK THROUGH THEMALL, YOUR HONOR.MR. SMITH, WHO WAS A PERSONWHO TESTIFIED WITH REGARD TOTHE GUN TESTIFIES SPEAKING TOSOMEBODY OVER THE PHONE, WHICH-- YOU KNOW, COULD OR COULDNOT BE RELIABLE AND IS ALSOCLOSELY CONNECTED TO MARYSTEWART, WHO IS ANOTHERWITNESS IN THE CASE, WHO IS AFRIEND OF EDWARD WILLIAMS, ASIDENTIFIED IN THE CASE.EXCEPT THAT IT TURNS OUT SHEWASN'T A FRIEND, SHE IS ANEX-WIFE TO WHOM MR. WILLIAMSTRANSFERRED SUBSTANTIAL ASSETSIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIMEAROUND THE TIME OF THEKILLING.SO, MR. SMITH, THE SON-IN-LAWOF MS. STEWART IS SUSPECT INTHAT CONNECTION.MR. THOMAS, WHO IS SUPPOSED TOBE AN IMPORTANT WITNESS HERE,IS TIED VERY CLOSELY TOCHARLIE MAYS, AND EVERYTHINGHE TESTIFIED TO IS I WAS DOINGIT FOR CHARLIE MACE, I WASDOING IT FOR CHARLIE MAYS ANDIF YOU BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE --OR IF THE JURY HEARS -- IBELIEVE THE JURY SHOULD HEARABOUT THE BLOOD TEST RESULTSON CHARLIE MAYS' PANTS AND YOULOOK AT IT AND YOU SAY, HMM...CHARLIE MAYS LOOKS TO BE APERPETRATOR AND LOOK AT BELTONTHOMAS IN A NEW LIGHT BECAUSEHE WAS THOROUGHLY IMPEACHEDAND THE COURT SAID AS MUCH ANDTHAT IS A REASON WHY THE COURTWAS NOT PARTICULARLY PERSUADEDBY THE BRADY ARGUMENT WEBROUGHT A FEW YEARS AGO ABOUTADDITIONAL STATEMENTS.HE WAS AN IFFY WITNESS AND ASWAS MR. EDWARDS AND THEY WEREALL HEAVILY IMPEACHED ANDTHERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE TOCORROBORATE THEM ACCORDING TOTHE COURT AND THAT EVIDENCE ISFALLING APART.THAT IS WHAT THE DNA TESTINGTELLS YOU.AND THE EVIDENCE THEY WEREHANGING ON IT FALLS APART ANDPOINTS STRONGLY AT CHARLIEMAYS, AS THE PERP --PERPETRATOR HERE AND WOULD AREASONABLY MAKE A DIFFERENTDECISION AND YOU KNOW THISJURY THAT HAD THE CASE HAD A 6-6VOTE ITS FIRST TIME BACK INTHE JURY ROOM AND YOU KNOWTHEY SPLIT THE VERDICT BETWEENFIRST AND SECOND DEGREEMURDERS IN A CASE WHICH, IFTHEY BELIEVED THE STATECATEGORICALLY, REALLY BOUGHTIN THE STATE'S CASE, FOURFIRST DEGREE MURDERCONVICTIONS HERE AND WITHTHOSE CONVICTIONS THE JURYRECOMMENDED LIFE AND IN THISCASE, THIS COURT HAS SAIDTWICE -- TWICE IT HAS SAID,YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THAT LIFEVERDICT BY REASONABLE MEANS,EXCEPT OCHK ONE CRITERIA THISCOURT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE WHICHIS THAT RESIDUAL BOUT JURIESOFTEN HAVE IN DEATH PENALTYCASES, SOMETHING IS NAGGING ATTHEM.AND THINK OF THIS IN TERMS OF-- WHAT IF YOU COULD SCOREREASONABLE DOUBT AND I KNOW WEHAVE ALL SEEN THE DEBATES,ACADEMICS HAVE AND IF IF YOU-- WHAT IF YOU SCOREREASONABLE DOUBT AND HAVE THESCORE OUT OF 100 AND GOT RIDOF REASONABLE DOUBT AND THISIS THE KIND OF CASE THAT CAMEIN 1986-8 UP AND CHARLIE MAYSAND THE OTHER DNA TEST RESULTS,KNOCKED IT DOWN EMPLOYEE 85AND THE 70s AND 60s, DEPENDINGON HOW YOU LOOK AT THIS ANDTHAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANTABOUT THE EVIDENCE, FORPURPOSES OF DECIDING WHETHEROR NOT THERE SHOULD BE A NEWTRIAL AND LOOKING AT EVIDENCETHAT FOX YOU DOWN BELOW THESTANDARD AND JUST LAST --
YOU ARE INTO YOUR REBUTTALNOW.
I WILL TIE IT UP QUICKLY,THIS LAST WEEK AND I KNOWMR. NUNNELLEY NOTED FOR YOUTHE CHERRY CASES, SUPPLEMENTALAUTHORITY, AND AN INTERESTINGCASE DECIDED BY THE COURT WASREICHMAN VERSUS STATE, DECIDEDON THURSDAY WHEN IT TALKSABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TODEMONSTRATE NEW EVIDENCE ITTALKS ABOUT WEAKENING THE CASEAGAINST THE DEFENDANT, GIVINGRISE TO REASONABLE DOUBTREGARDING THE CULL --CULPABILITY AND THAT IS WHATTHE DNA EVIDENCE BRINGS TO YOU,AND WEAKENS THE CASE AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANT, AND RISE TOREASONABLE DOUBTED AND THAT ISWHY HE SHOULD HAVE A NEWTRIAL.
WILL YOU REST ON THESE ORTHE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BETESTED.
I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE BRIEF,YOUR HONOR.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, IREPRESENT THE STATE OF FLORIDAIN THIS PROCEEDING.LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DNAEVIDENCE THAT MR. ZIEGLERFORGOT TO MENTION AND THAT ISTHE BLOOD ON TOMMY ZIEGLER'SSHIRT THAT CAME FROM CHARLIEMAYS.WE GOT -- LET ME -- WITH THATSAID, LET ME BACK UP TO THE1995 DECISION, THAT MYOPPONENT CHARACTERIZES -- I'LLLEAVE IT TO THE COURT'SDETERMINATION AS TO WHETHERTHE FINDINGS ARE --[INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE YOU SAID,YOU SAID AGAIN, IT BEARSREITERATING.WE FIND -- AND THAT DOESN'TSOUND LIKE DICTA TO ME EVEN IFTHE DNA RESULTS COMPORTED WITHTHE SCENARIO, MOST FAVORABLETO ZIEGLER, HE STILL WOULD NOTHAVE BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THATTHE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVEPROBABLY PRODUCED ANACQUITTAL.THAT IS STRAIGHT OUT OF JONESAND THAT IS STRAIGHT UP WITHALL THIS CASE.
THE -- JUST EXPLAIN IT,BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU ARE ALSOMUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH HOWTHIS DNA EVIDENCE PLAYS OUT.THE BLOOD ON ZIEGLER COMINGFROM MAYS IS THAT -- COULDTHAT BE CONSISTENT WITH THESCENARIO THAT MACE IS THEPERPETRATOR?IN OTHER WORDS, THE FACT THATTHERE WOULD BE BLOOD ON ONE ORTHE OTHER, I MEAN, IF MAYS ISKILLING ZIEGLER AND HE'SALREADY BEEN -- BEEN WOUNDED,I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCENARIOIS, BUT IS THERE A SCENARIOTHAT COULD BE -- COULD STILLPUT MACE AS A PERPETRATOR.
LET ME ANSWER THAT IN TWOWAYS, IT IS A TWO PART ANSWER.I'M NOT TRYING TO EVADE THEQUESTION BUT WE HAVE TO LOOKAT WHAT WE HAVE FROM 1975 ASFAR AS THE EVIDENCE GOES.THIS IS ZIEGLER'S SHIRT ORSPORTS SHIRT OR WHATEVER YOUWANT TO CALL IT AND A T-SHIRTOR OTHER SHIRTS.BLOOD ON BOTH IS THE SAME ANDPRETTY MUCH MATCHES UP, BESTWE CAN TELL.BUT, TOMMY ZIEGLER CALLED HISLAWYER

VANDEVENTER, LAW ENFORCEMENT

SHOWS UP, ONE OF THE TWO CHIEF

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

TURNED UP, I BELIEVE IT WAS

THE WINTER GARDEN CHIEF OF

POLICE LOADED HIM INTO THE CAR

AND TOOK HIM TO THE HOSPITAL.

REMEMBER, THIS IS 32 YEARS

AGO.

WHEN THEY GET ZEIGLER TO THE

HOSPITAL, HE GOES INTO A

TRAUMA ROOM.

HIS CLOTHES ARE REMOVED FROM

HIM, PROBABLY BY BEING CUT OFF

OF HIM.

THEY ARE PITCHED ON THE FLOOR.

>> BEFORE YOU CONTINUE ON WITH

THIS SCENARIO, WHAT EVIDENCE

DO WE HAVE THAT THIS WAS SELF-

INFLICTED WOUND?

>> THAT IS INFERENCE, JUSTICE

QUINCE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE

THAT THAT WOUND WAS INFLICTED

BY ANYONE OTHER THAN

MR. ZEIGLER.

THAT IS WHERE IT STANDS.

THAT IS HOW THE EVIDENCE

PLAYED OUT.

>> HOW SERIOUS OF A WOUND WAS

IT?

>> WELL, MR. ZEIGLER WAS SHOT

IN THE STOMACH, AS I

UNDERSTAND IT, THE READING OF

THE TESTIMONY, THE MEDICAL

TESTIMONY, WENT IN HERE, CAME

OUT HERE, MANAGED TO MISS

ANYTHING IMPORTANT.

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT HE WENT

INTO SURGERY,

IT IS TRUE THAT HIS DOCTOR DID

EXPLORATORY ON HIM TO SEE

EXTENT OF HIS INJURY?

HIS INJURIES TURNED OUT TO BE

VERY MILD.

IN FACT, THE INJURIES THAT

MR. ZEIGLER WAS COMPLAINING

ABOUT WERE INJURIES TO HIS

FINGERS.

>> WHY, MAYBE AGAIN, YOU KNOW,

THIS IS UNUSUAL CASE, AND I

THINK, PART OF THE THING THAT

IS JUST, IS SORT OF BEEN

NAGGING MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS

JURY RECOMMENDATION OF LIFE

WITH THIS MULTIPLE HEINOUS

MURDERS SEEMS, YOU KNOW, JUST

INCOMPREHENSIBLE UNLESS YOU

PUT IT ON THAT THERE WAS, SOME

DOUBT AS TO WHETHER HE WAS THE

PERPETRATOR OF KILLING ALL OF

THESE PEOPLE.

WHY?

WHAT WAS THE STATE'S

EXPLANATION AS TO WHY HE

DIDN'T LEAVE?

YOU KNOW, IF HE KILLED

EVERYBODY, WHY HE DIDN'T LEAVE

THE SCENE?

>> BECAUSE HE HAD TRIED TO

KILL EDWARD WILLIAMS

UNSUCCESSFULLY.

IF HE HAD KILLED EDWARD

WILLIAMS, OKAY?

THIS IS THE GUY WHO HE

CONFRONTED IN THE BACK HALL OF

THE STORE, AIMED A PISTOL AT

HIM, PULLED THE TRIGGER THREE

TIMES, ITS WITH AN EMPTY

WEAPON.

>> WHAT WAS THE STATE'S REASON

FOR WHY HE WOULD HAVE KILLED

ALL OF THE OTHER PEOPLE OTHER

THAN HIS WIFE?

>> LET ME BACK UP JUSTICE

PARIENTE, THIS IS A LONG

ANSWER, I AM SORRY.

>> WE GOT TO GET BACK TO HOW

THE BLOOD COULD HAVE BEEN ON

ZEIGLER FROM MAYS.

WELL, LET ME ANSWER THAT ONE

FIRST.

MAY HAVE TO REMIND ME OF WHAT

THE OTHER QUESTION IS.

IT HAS BEEN KIND OF A LONG

MORNING.

ZEIGLER'S CLOTHES WERE

RELEASED IN A PLASTIC BAG TO

ONE OF HIS RELATIVES.

THOSE ARE WADED UP IN THERE.

THE RELATIVE DOESN'T OPEN THE

BAG.

LAW ENFORCEMENT CALLS HIM AND

TELLS HIM TO BRING THE STUFF

BACK TO THE HOSPITAL AND TAKES

IT FROM HIM THEN.

ANYWAY, THAT IS WHAT IS GOING

ON HERE WITH THAT.

WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, YOU HAVE

EVIDENCE OF ZEIGLER AND THE

LIFE INSURE, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE

BACK IN THE SUMMER.

I THINK WE BETTER ANSWER --

BECAUSE YOU WHAT POINTED OUT

IS YOU SAID WHAT THEY DIDN'T

MENTION ABOUT THE DNA EVIDENCE

WAS THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON

ZEIGLER THAT CAME FROM MAYS.

MY QUESTION WAS TO YOU SEEMED

LAKE SIMPLE QUESTION:

WHY COULDN'T HAVE THAT OCCURED

MAYS WAS THE PERPETRATOR.

I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO

EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THE ANSWER TO

THAT.

>> SORRY.

IT IS CONVOLUTED.

A LOT OF THIS IS DIFFICULT TO

MAKE SENSE OUT OF.

WE CAN'T DRAW TOO MUCH FROM

THE STAINING PATTERNS OF THIS

BLOOD ON ZEIGLER'S SHIRT.

BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF

THAT SHIRT WHEN IT WAS

OBTAINED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WHAT WE CAN DRAW FROM THIS IS

THAT YOU HAVE FOUR PEOPLE

KILLED IN A FURNITURE STORE.

YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF

BACK THERE WHERE CHARLIE MAYS

AN HARRY EDWARDS WERE FOUND.

YOU GOT BLOOD ALL OVER THE

PLACE.

WHAT YOU HAVE IS ZEIGLER WITH

ONE OF HIS MURDER VICTIMS ON

HIS CLOTHING AN THERE IS NO

WAY CAN EXPLAIN THAT BLOOD

AWAY.

THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE.

NOW I AM SURE MY OPPONENT IS

GOING TO GET UP AND TELL YOU

THAT MR. ZEIGLER CRAWLED OVER

CHARLIE MAYS DEAD BODY GET TO

A TELEPHONE TO CALL FOR HELP.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER, THAT

IS NOT A LEGITIMATE

EXPLANATION.

>> IS IT?

>> NO, MA'AM.

THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL REBUTS

THAT INFORMATION.

>> WHAT ABOUT THIS FIRST --

WHEN I {SQHAD} WAS THE MOST

COMPELLING NEW EVIDENCE.

THE SATURATION STAIN OF

EDWARDS ON MAYS.

IS THAT, DOES THAT EXPLAIN

SOME OTHER INNOCENT WAY?

THAT IS HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?

>> I WOULD INVITE THE COURT

LOOK AT THE PICTURES.

PIT LOOKS LIKE A

SLAUGHTERHOUSE.

THAT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

BACK WHERE THE TWO MEN ARE

FOUND.

THERE IS BLOOD ALL OVER THE

PLACE.

THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A

STRUGGLE BETWEEN MAYS AND

ZEIGLER AND EDWARDS AN

ZEIGLER.

>> HOW CLOSE ARE EDWARDS AND

MAYS TOGETHER?

>> THEIR BODIES ARE 15 FEET

APART.

>> THIS WAS FURNITURE STORE?

>> YES, YOUR HONOR.

>> AND A RATHER LARGE

FURNITURE STORE RELATIVELY

SORT OF A WAREHOUSE TYPE OF A

STORE?

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING,

JUSTICE WELLS, I DON'T KNOW

WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE EXACTLY.

IT IS RATHER BIG BUILDING.

>> OKAY.

WHERE THESE BODIES LOCATED IN

RELATION TO EACH OTHER?

THEY WERE BOTH TOWARD THE BACK

OF THE STORE ON A FLOOR BACK

TOWARD THE BACK OFFICE AREA OF

THE STORE.

>> AND WHEN, WHEN -- DO THE

PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THE BLOOD AND

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE BODIES

TO EACH OTHER?

>> THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THE

BLOOD.

YOU HAVE TO USE -- BECAUSE

THESE ARE RELATIVELY

TIGHT-ANGLE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND

YOU HAVE TO PUT TWO OF THEM

TOGETHER TO GET A PICTURE OF

WHERE THE TWO BODIES ARE IN

RELATIONSHIP.

THE PHOTOGRAPHS OVERLAP, IN

OTHER WORDS, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF

CHARLIE MAYS'S BODY OVERLAPS

WHERE PERRY EDWARDS BODIES,

BUT THEY DO NOT SHOW BOTH

BODIES TOGETHER.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY

PHOTOGRAPHED THEM IN THAT

FASHION.

I WOULD NOT VENTURE

EXPLANATION, BUT THERE'S

SEVERAL GUNS LAYING YOU AT

OVER THE PLACE.

>> WAS TOMMY ZEIGLER

IMMEDIATELY ARRESTED?

WAS IT SOME TIME LATER?

>> I THINK TWO LAYS LATER,

JUSTICE WELLS.

REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE.

>> THE HOSPITAL WAS THAT

NIGHT.

>> I BELIEVE SO.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS.

IT HAS CHANGED A LOT DOWN

THERE SINCE ALL OF THIS

HAPPENED.

I DON'T KNOW THE LANDMARKS

THAT THEY REFER TO ALL THAT

WELL.

BUY GOT THE IDEA OR HAD THE

IDEA THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT

TERRIBLY FAR AWAY FROM THE

FURNITURE STORE.

>> ON THIS BLOOD ISSUE.

THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE A FINDING

THESE FIGS DO NOT SHOW AS THE

DEFENDANT IS SEARCHED THAT

MAYS IS THE PERPETRATOR RATHER

THAN A VICTIM OF THE CRIMES.

IF MAYS WERE INVOLVED IN A

STRUGGLE WHILE IN CLOSE

PROXIMITY WITH PERRY'S BLOODY

BODY, IT WOULD NOT BE

SURPRISING THAT PERRY'S BLOOD

ENDED UP ON MAYS SHOES AN

PANTS DURING THE ALTERCATION.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE

RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT

FINDING? YES, IS THERE.

>> WHAT IS IT?

>> BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE,

THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM

TRIAL, THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH

ARE UNDISPUTED.

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE

WAS A STRUGGLE BETWEEN BOTH

EDWARDS AN ZEIGLER AN MAYS AN

ZEIGLER AND THERE IS NO

QUESTION THAT MAYS BODY WAS

MOVED A COUPLE OF TIMES.

WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY BY

WHOM.

WE DO KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT

AND TIME, MR. MAYS UNDERWEAR

AND TROUSERS WERE IN A

DIFFERENT POSITION FROM THAT

IN WHICH THEY WERE FOUND

BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE

BLOODSTAINS ON THOSE ARTICLES

OF CLOTHING.

THAT BLOOD BEING MR. MAYS OWN

BLOOD.

I DO NOT HAVE AN EXPLANATION

FOR THAT.

I NEVER HEARD THE DEFENSE

OFFER EXPLANATION FOR THAT

EVEN THOUGH THE REBUTTAL MAY

BE THE TIME WE HEAR IT.

AGAIN, I DO NOT HAVE TO

EXPLAIN THOSE ISSUES.

>> WELL, HELP ME UNDERSTAND

THAT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BLOOD

SPATER ON THE BACK OF THE

EFFICIENT DID HE'S SHIRT.

THERE WAS BLOODSTAIN ON THE

BACK OF ZEIGLER'S SHIRT

CONSISTENT WITH BEATING

SOMEBODY?

>> THAT -- YES AND NO.

THE REASON I SAY NO IS BECAUSE

THAT, THAT BLOOD SPATTER WAS

NOT TESTED.

OKAY.

IT WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE

HEARING THAT, THAT WAS NOT

BEING, THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS

BEING SAID.

NO ONE WAS CLAIMING OR AT

LEAST THE STATE WAS NOT

CLAIMING THAT THAT WAS BLOOD

SPATTER; HOWEVER, THE EXPERT

WHO WAS DEFENSE EXPERT BY THE

WAY WAS VERY CLEAR IN SAYING

THAT IF ONE ASSUMES THAT IS

BLOOD SPLATTER, THAT THAT IS

BLOOD, FIRST ASSUMPTION, THE

SECOND ASSUMPTION, THAT IS

CHARLIE MAYS BLOOD, THEN THE

OM WAY IT GOT THERE WAS

BECAUSE OF A BEATING.

AND AS JUSTICE DEMONSTRATED.

THAT WOULD BE PASSED OFF BLOOD

FROM A BLUNT-FORCE OBJECT.

IT WAS NOT TESTED.

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ASK TO

HAVE IT TESTED.

WHICH UNTIL NOW, AFTER IT IS

ALL OVER WITH, NOW HE

COMPLAINS IT WAS NOT TESTED.

HE ASKED TO HAVE IT TESTED

AFTER HE FILED HIS MOTION FOR

REHEARING AFTER HE HAD ALREADY

LOST.

THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE

MOTION FOR REHEARING.

THE DEFENDANT NEVER SOUGHT A

RULING ON HIS MOTION FOR

ADDITIONAL TESTING BUT INSTEAD

FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL.

THAT IS A WAIVER ON

ABANDONMENT, WHICHEVER WAY

WANT YOU TO PUT IT.

HE SHOULD HAVE GOT A RULING IF

HE WANTED TO TAKE IT UP.

HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

NOW I AM SURE HE IS ALSO GOING

TO SUGGEST THAT THIS SHOULD

REMAIN ON THE CASE FOR FURTHER

TESTING AND I WOULD SUGGEST

THAT THE DEFENDANT IS THE

MASTER OF HIS CASE.

IF HE HAD WANTED THE BLOOD ON

THE BACK OF ZEIGLER'S SHIRT

TESTED.

HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THEN.

NOT NOW.

THE TIME FOR THAT IS PAST.

I REPORT ALSO JUSTICE PARRY

ENTER, I AM COMING BACK TO

YOUR QUESTION ABOUT WHY HE

WOULD KILL ALL OF THESE PEOPLE

AND THIS AND THAT.

THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE

RECORD OF SOME MARITAL DISCORD

BETWEEN MR. ZEIGLER AND HIS

WIFE.

THE TWO OF THE VICTIMS,

MRS. AND MRS. EDWARDS WERE,

IF, MR. ZEIGLER'S IN-LAWS THEY

WERE FROM GEORGIA DOWN

VISITING FOR CHRISTMAS.

THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE IN THE

RECORD THAT MRS. ZEIGLER,

EUNICE ZEIGLER WAS ATTENDING

TO GO BACK TO GEORGIA WITH HER

PARENTS WHEN THEY WENT BACK

AFTER CHRISTMAS.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT

PROVIDES THE REASON FOR

KILLING THE IN-LAWS.

BECAUSE IF HE HAS RAISED

INSURANCE ON HIS WIFE, AND HIS

WIFE COMES UP DEAD AND HIS

IN-LAWS KNOW OR RATH REMEMBER

STILL ALIVE TO SAY THERE WAS

SOME MARITAL DIFFICULTY.

MR. ZEIGLER'S WIFE WAS GOING

TO LEAVE HIM, THAT POINTS THE

DAGGER AT MR. ZEIGLER'S HEART.

>> THERE IS SOME INDICATION IN

OUR STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

THAT MR. ZEIGLER SOMEHOW GOT

THEM TO DOM THE FURNITURE

STORE AT NIGHT.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WHAT DOES VERY THAT

SUPPORTS THAT STATEMENT.

>> MR. ZEIGLER OWN AS

FURNITURE STORE.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE

EVIDENCE IS THAT -- WELL, LET

ME BACK IT UP.

I AM TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE

BETWEEN TWO SETS OF PARENTS

HERE.

MR. ZEIGLER'S PARENTS -- WELL,

ZEIGLER'S PARENTS CAN LIVE

NEXT DOOR TO HIM, HIS WIFE'S

PARENTS VISITING FROM GEORGIA,

BOTH OF THEM HAD A CHRISTMAS

PRESENT AT THE STORE.

THAT IS WHY THEY WINT TO THE

STORE, WAS TO PICK UP THE

CHRISTMAS PRESENT.

I THINK WHAT WAS GOING ON, I

THINK THE REASON THAT WAS

GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO THE

EDWARDS WAS TO PICK OUT SA

LAZY BOY RECLINER THAT WAS

GOING TO BE THEIR CHRISTMAS

GIFT, IF IT WASN'T THIS LAZY

BOY, IT WAS THE CHARCOAL

GRILL, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH

PARENT WAS GETTING WHICH

PRESENT.

THAT WAS THE REASON THEY WENT

TO THE STORE.

IT WAS NOT SOME FLAKY WHACK CO

REASON, LET'S TAKE RIDE ON

CHRISTMAS EVE.

THERE WAS REASON TO PICK UP

THE PRESENT OR PICK OUT THE

PRESENT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> WHAT WAS EXPLANATION FOR

MAYS AND MAYBE MAYS WIFE

HAVING AN APPOINTMENT TO GO TO

THE STORE THAT EVENING?

HOW DID MAYS AT END UP AT THE

STORE?

>> MAYS END UP AT THE STORE

BECAUSE HE WAS PICKING UP A

CHRISTMAS PRESENT ALSO, A

TELEVISION SET.

>> SO THE IDEA IS THAT HE

WANTS TO KILL HIS WIFE, KILL

HER IN THE STORE, BUT ARRANGES

TO HAVE MAYS COME AN HOUR

LATER TO ALSO PICK OUT A

PRESENT SO HE COULD SHOOT MAYS

AND HIS WIFE AND MAYBE WHO IS

THE OTHER PERSON THAT HE

DOESN'T KILL?

HOW DID THE STATE DEAL WITH

THAT?

>> BECAUSE CHARLIE MAYS IS

TOLD TO COME TO THE STORE TO

COLLECT A TELEVISION SET THAT

HE HAD PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT.

>> WHAT IS EXPLANATION FOR WHY

HE WOULD HAVE HE KNEW HE WAS

GOING TO KILL HIS WIFE THAT

NIGHT, WHY HE IS GOING TO HAVE

MAYS COME TO THE STORE AND

THEN?

>> BECAUSE HE WANTS A DEAD

AFRICAN-AMERICAN TO BLAME FOR

THE MURDERS.

THAT IS WHY CHARLIE MAYS IS

THERE.

CHARLIE MAYS IS BROUGHT, IS

INVITED OR ARRANGED TO BE AT

THAT STORE SOLELY TO BE DEAD

BODY.

EDWARD WILLIAMS WAS GOING TO

BE THE SECOND DEAD BODY AND

WHEN THE GUN DIDN'T FIRE AND

KILL EDWARD WILLIAMS,

MR. ZEIGLER HAD TO DO

SOMETHING OTHER THAN GO TO TED

VANDEVENTER'S BODY, LOOK AT

HIS WATCH, MY WIFE SHOULD HAVE

BEEN HERE BY NOW, WHEN THEY

GET DOWN TO THE STORE, YOU GOT

FIVE DEAD BODIES.

MR. ZEIGLER GETS INSURANCE.

AND HAS PULLED OFF PRETTY NEAR

CLOSE TO PERFECT CRIME BUT IT

DIDN'T WORK.

THE DNA EVIDENCE DID NOT PULL

INTO THAT INTO QUESTION.

I PROVES THAT THE STATE WAS

RIGHT WHEN IT SAID IN CLOSING

ARGUMENT WHOSE BLEEDING TYPE A

BLOOD?

PERRY EDWARDS, EUNICE ZEIGLER,

CHARLIE MAYS, I WILL COMMEND

THAT TO THE COURT ALSO 250 OF

THE RECORD, THE OPENING

STATEMENT.

ONE QUESTION, ONE ARGUMENT IN

THIS RECORD THAT IS OVER 3,000

PAGES WHERE YOU CAN EVEN

ARGUABLE MAKE A SUGGESTION

THAT THE STATE SAID OH THAT IS

PERRY EDWARD'S PLUG ON

ZEIGLER'S SHIRT.

WHEN THE STATE ATTORNEY ASKED

HIM, CUE EXPLAIN HOW

MR. EDWARDS GOT ON THE SHIRT.

NO, I DIDN'T.

I DIDN'T DO IT.

THAT IS IT.

I WOULD INVITE MY OPPONENT TO

FIND ANYTHING ELSE IN HERE.

AND WITH THAT SAID, I AGAIN

COME BACK TO THIS COURT'S 1995

OPINION.

AND IN THAT OPINION THIS COURT

ASSUMED FAR, FAR MORE THAN

MR. ZEIGLER HAS SHOWN YOU

TODAY.

IN '95, THIS COURT ASSUMED, IT

WAS GOING TO SHOW THAT ZEIGLER

SHOWED SOME ONE ELSE'S BLOOD.

I WOULD SUGGEST THERE IS NO

BASIS FOR REVERSAL, NO BASIS

FOR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDING.

THANK YOU.

>> TO CORRECT ONE, I THINK,

MISIMPRESSION THAT MAY HAVE

COME OUT OF MR. NUNNELLEY'S

PRESENTATION, THERE WAS NO

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY ON

THIS MARITAL DISCORD

APARTMENT.

THE JUDGE RIGHTLY REJECTED

HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF EN

ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE NATURE.

THERE WAS NEVER TESTIMONY OF

THE MAR MARITAL DISORDER.

IT WAS TRIED ON INSURANCE

THEORY.

>> WHAT EXACTLY DID HE SEE

THAT HE TESTIFIED TO?

>> WILLIAMS?

>> YES, WILLIAMS TESTIFIED AS

WITNESS.

>> WHAT EXACTLY DID HE SAY AS

FAR AS HIS TESTIMONY?

DID HE SEE ALL OF THE MURDERS?

>> WILLIAMS IS NOT PRESENT FOR

ANY OF THE KILLINGS.

HE CLAIMS THAT HE CAME TO THE

STORE SUBSEQUENTLY.

HE CLAIMS THAT MR. ZEIGLER

TRIED TO GET HIM TO SHOOT HIM,

THE GUN WENT OUT THREE TIMES

WITHOUT DISCHARGE, MR. ZEIGLER

HANDED HIM THE GUN, HE RAN

FROM THE STORE WITH THAT GUN.

IS A SAID, THE CLOSING DOESN'T

SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT HE TOOK

AND RECENTLY DISCHARGED

FIREARM AND PUT IT IN THE

PANT'S POCKET, THAT IS

SOMETHING WE WANTED TO EXPAND

THE PRECEDING BELOW TO SHOW,

BUT THE JUDGE WOULD NOT LET US

DO.

>> LET ME MAKE ONE OTHER

POINT, THIS GOES TO JUSTICE

BELL'S QUESTION ABOUT

SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE

TO SUPPORT THE JUDGE'S FINDING

AS YOU PUT IT.

FIRST, I DON'T THINK IT IS NOT

SURPRISE.

THAT IS NOT A FINDING, THAT IS

OBSERVATION.

THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

WE HAVE THE EXPERT TESTIMONY

OF PROFESSOR MCDONALD AT THE

TRIAL IN WHICH HE SAYS THE

BLOOD FROM PERRY EDWARDS IS

TRY ON THE AREA THAT MAYS

WENT DOWN BEFORE MAYS IS

KILLED THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE

ANY SOURCE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY SIGN OF ANY

BLOODY FOOTPRINTS FROM CHARLIE

MAYS BE EXPECTED IF HE STEPPED

INTO THE BLOOD.

THERE IS ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF

BLOOD AROUND PERRY EDWARDS

HEAD WHICH IS 15 FEET AWAY

FROM WHERE CHARLIE MAYS ENDS

UP IF THE FIGHT WENT INTO THAT

AREA, IT WHEN CHARLIE MAYS

STEPPED NIGHT, HE WOULD TRACK

BLOOD ACROSS THE FLOOR FROM

THE FEET.

IT IS VERY SPECIFIC TESTIMONY

BY THE PROFESSOR.

NO BLOODY FOOTPRINTS FROM

CHARLIE MAYS.

HOW DID THIS BLOOD GET ON

CHARLIE MAYS?

WE PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING IN

THE BRIEF.

CHARLIE MAYS BEATS PERRY

EDWARDS, HE IS GOES ON TO

CARPETING PART OF THE STORE,

THERE IS CARPETING PART TO

PURSUE VIRGINIA EDWARDS, HE

PICKS UP CARPET FIBERS AND HE

PICKS UP CAT HAIRS IN HIS

SHOES BECAUSE HIS SHOES DO

HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF BLOOD ON

THE BOTTOM OF IT.

I WILL TELL YOU WHY BECAUSE HE

WALKED ON THE CARPET.

IT TOOK MOST OF THE BLOOD THAT

WOULD BE LEAVING THE FOOTPRINT

OFF OF HIS FEET.

THAT IS WHY YOU DON'T SEE

BLOODY FOOTPRINTS BUT YOU SEE

BLOOD, YOU SEE CARPET FIBER,

YOU SEE CAT HAIRS.

THE BOTTOM LINE OF ALL OF

THIS, IF CAN I GO FOR A COUPLE

SECONDS MORE, YOUR HONOR, THE

BOTTOM LINE OF THIS, WE ARE

TALKING ABOUT WHAT A

REASONABLE JUROR WOULD DO WITH

THIS EVIDENCE.

ASK YOURSELF THIS, IN A CASE

WHICH AS JUSTICE PARIENTE

POINTS OUT.

YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN TO THE CASE

IN WHICH THE JURY CLEARLY HAD

A LOT OF NARROWED DOUBTS ABOUT

THIS CASE, AT THIS KIND INTO

THE MIX, DON'T YOU HAVE A

PROBABILITY OF ACQUITTAL? I

THAT I IS THERE.

I THINK SHOULD RULE IN FAVOR

OF MR. ZEIGLER'S RELEASE THAT

IS REQUESTED.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS.

THE COURT WILL TAKE THE MATTER

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

>>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE CALL

WILLING LENDER IS -- CALENDAR

IS INSKO VERSUS THE STATE OF

FLORIDA.