The Commission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly. This information; however, is subject to change and may not reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied upon for statistical or legal purposes.
BIGHAM, Eddie (B/M)
DOB: 08/23/1957
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, Case #03-2566CF
Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Edwin M. Fry, Jr.
Attorneys, Trial: Mark V. Harllee & John Unruh- Assistant Public Defenders
Attorneys, Direct Appeal: Jeffrey L. Anderson- Assistant Public Defender
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: TBA
Date of Offense: 05/24/03
Date of Sentence: 01/11/05
Circumstances of Offense:
Eddie Bigham, the defendant, was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Lourdes Cavazos-Blandin, also known as Lulu.
Jose Guillermo, also known as Oscar, testified that on May 23, 2003, he and Lulu went to bed at 10:30 PM. They had vaginal sex. Oscar testified that he never had anal sex with his wife. When Oscar woke up at 6:30 AM, Lulu was gone. Oscar was not worried because Lulu would frequently leave during the night. Oscar testified he knew Lulu was going out at night but he did not know she was going out with other men.
Bigham testified he had sex with Lulu twice that evening- once at a friend’s house and later outside in the bushes. Bigham testified he could not recall if he penetrated her rectum or not. After the second time they had sex, he noticed the condom was not on when he pulled out. Bigham testified he saw Lulu dressing as he left.
On the morning of May 24, 2003 Dennis Lewis found Lulu’s body in the woods while on his way to work. Her body was nude except for a bra which was rolled up over her breasts. A pair of denim shorts, a T-shirt, and a pair of panties had been folded and placed on top of the body. There was dirt on the shorts. There were pine needles on her back but there was no dirt. Five hairs were found under the clothing laid on the body. A black condom was found inside the rectum. A condom wrapper was found 1 foot from the street.
Seminal fluid of the victim’s husband was found on the outside of the condom, on the panties of the victim, and on the white T-shirt. Two seminal fluid stains on the T-shirt came solely from the husband. Seminal fluid containing Eddie Bigham’s DNA was found on the outside and inside of the condom, on the white T-shirt, and on the pocket lining of the victim’s shorts. A vaginal swab found a mixture of two DNA sources from two individuals. The vaginal swab contained nothing from Oscar.
The victim’s T-shirt also contained fecal stains in addition to the semen and blood. The stain on the T-shirt was consistent with the wiping off of an erect penis. Forensic technician Earl Ritzline testified that he could not determine whose penis was wiped on the T-shirt.
One hair matching Bigham was found on the victim. The other hairs found on Lulu’s body were determined to have come from someone other than the victim. However, they could not be matched to any specific individual. Two bloodstains matching Bigham’s DNA were found on the T-shirt.
Forensic technician Earl Ritzline testified that there was no evidence of anything other than consensual sex. Ritzline testified that because “such a small quantity” of blood was on the clothing he could not indicate if there was a struggle..
The forensic evidence could not be used to determine conclusively whether Oscar had sex with Lulu before or after Bigham. However, Ritzling testified that the most plausible scenario based upon the physical evidence was that Lulu first had vaginal sex without a condom with her husband Oscar. She then dressed, putting on her panties under her shorts. There was clear evidence of drainage of Oscar’s semen into the panties, which is consistent with her walking while dressed. She then had sex with Bigham, both vaginally and anally. The vaginal intercourse with Bigham would have naturally pushed Oscar’s semen out and onto the upper region of the outside of the condom. Bigham also ejaculated onto the pocket area of her shorts while they were inside out and pulled down based upon the spread of the stain. He left the condom in her anus. She did not stand or dress after Bigham’s sodomy since neither fecal matter nor Bigham’s semen ended up on her panties or the crotch area of her shorts.
Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Charles Diggs testified the victim’s cause of death was manual strangulation. He also found no trauma to the body to indicate that a struggle took place. He testified that the time of death was most likely around 1 or 2 AM.
On July 1, 2003 officers from the Ft. Pierce Police Department interviewed Bigham. Bigham denied any involvement in the murder.
Prior Incarceration History in the State of Florida:
|
Offense Date |
Offense |
Sentence Date |
County |
Case No. |
Prison Sentence Length |
|
10/2/1978 |
Kidnapping |
1/17/1979 |
Broward |
|
7 years 6 months |
|
7/26/1983 |
Robbery |
7/6/1984 |
Broward |
8307832 |
3 years |
|
4/7/1984 |
Grand theft |
7/6/1984 |
Broward |
8404008 |
1 year |
|
10/1/1985 |
Robbery |
11/25/1985 |
Broward |
8512233 |
9 years |
|
10/30/1988 |
2nd Degree Murder |
5/8/1989 |
Broward |
8821075 |
30 years |
|
10/30/1988 |
Child Abuse |
5/8/1989 |
Broward |
8821075 |
15 years |
|
Offense Date |
Offense |
Sentence Date |
County |
Case No. |
Community Supervision Length |
|
10/30/1988 |
2nd Degree Murder |
5/8/1989 |
Broward |
8821075 |
0 years 0 months 90 days |
|
10/30/1988 |
Aggravated Child Abuse |
5/8/1989 |
Broward |
8821075 |
0 years 0 months 90 days |
Trial Summary:
07/28/03 Indicted as follows:
Count I: First-Degree Murder
Count II: Kidnapping
Count III: Sexual Battery
11/12/04 Jury returned a guilty verdict for the first-degree murder charge; the court
granted a motion for acquittal for the kidnapping and sexual battery charges
11/15/04 Jury recommended death by a vote of 12-0
01/11/05 Sentenced as follows:
Count I: First-Degree Murder – Death Sentence
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC# 05-245
02/04/05 Appeal filed
00/00/00 Appeal denied
Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition of Sentence:
The appeals process appears to be within acceptable timeframes.
Case Information:
On 12/13/05, the defendant raised the following issues in a direct appeal: court’s denial of motion for acquittal; insufficient evidence to establish premeditation; jury selection, instructions, and deliberation; presentation of inappropriate testimony and evidence; prosecutor’s prejudicial remarks; pretrial conferences conducted in defendant’s absence; denial of defendant’s motion to suppress; inappropriate classification of the crime as heinous, atrocious, or cruel; trial court’s failure to make the findings required for the death penalty; improper weight to mitigating and aggravating circumstances; disproportionate nature of death sentence; unconstitutionality of death penalty. The appeal was denied by the Florida Supreme Court on
Report Date: 00/00/00 Initials
Approved: 00/00/00 Initials
Updated: 00/00/00 Initials