TheCommission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly. Thisinformation, however, is subject to change and may not reflect the lateststatus of an inmate’s case and should not be relied on for statistical or legalpurposes.

ZEIGLER,William T. Jr. (W/M)

DC#   053948

DOB: 07/24/45

NinthJudicial Circuit, Orange County, Trial venue changed to Fourth Judicial Circuit

CircuitCourt Cases: #76-1076 & 76-1082 (4th Circuit), #88-5355 & 88-5356 (9thCircuit)

Judge,Trial:  The Honorable Maurice M. Paul

Attorney,Trial:  Ralph V. Hadley III

Attorney,Direct Appeal:  H. Vernon Davids

Attorney,Collateral Appeals: John Houston Pope – Private

Date ofOffense: 12/24/75

Date ofSentence: 07/16/76

Date ofResentence: 08/17/89

Circumstancesof Offense:

On July2, 1976, William Thomas Zeigler Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degreemurder and two counts of second-degree murder.

Thefollowing account of the circumstances of the offense is that which is found inthe Florida Supreme Court Opinion, published June 11, 1981:

OnChristmas Eve, December 24, 1975, Eunice Zeigler, wife of the defendant, andPerry and Virginia Edwards, parents-in-law of the defendant, were shot to deathin the W.T. Zeigler Furniture Store in Winter Garden, Florida.  Inaddition, Charles Mays, Jr. was shot and subsequently beaten to death at thesame location.  The medical examiner estimated times of death as withinone hour of 8:00 p.m. that evening.  The defendant was also found shotthrough the abdomen.

Thestate theorized that Zeigler murdered the four people in an apparent insurancefraud scheme.  Just months before the murders, Zeigler had purchased alarge amount of life insurance on his wife and had purchased two RG revolversindirectly through Edward Williams, a long time family acquaintance. Williams testified that Zeigler had inquired of him about obtaining a “hotgun.”  Williams then arranged for another man, Frank Smith, to purchasethe guns and deliver them to Zeigler.

On theday of the murders, Zeigler had made arrangements to meet Mays and Williams, atseparate times, at the furniture store.  Mays left his home around 6:30p.m. and went to an Oakland beer joint where he encountered his friend, FeltonThomas.  Thomas then accompanied Mays to meet Zeigler at the furniturestore.  Upon meeting, Zeigler took the two men to an orange grove to shoota set of guns he had with him in his vehicle.  The state theorized thatthe purpose of this trip was to get the two men to handle and fire the weaponsZeigler had procured.  When they returned to the store, Zeigler could notpersuade Thomas to enter the store.  Thomas became uncomfortable and leftthe premises.  This was the last time Mays was seen alive by Thomas. 

Around8:00 p.m., Zeigler returned to his home to keep an earlier appointment he hadmade with Edward Williams.  Williams was to meet him at Zeigler’s home inorder to help Zeigler move Christmas presents from the furniture store. The two men used Williams’ truck to return to the store.  When theyarrived, Zeigler entered through the front door and instructed Williams to pullhis truck around to the back and then enter from the rear entrance.  WhenWilliams entered the back hallway, Zeigler put a gun to Williams’ chest andpulled the trigger three times.  However, the gun did not fire andWilliams fled the store.  At some point after this, Zeigler himself wasshot in the stomach.  The state theorized that Zeigler became desperateand conceived the idea that he would appear uninvolved if he were alsoinjured.  Zeigler telephoned a judge’s residence, where he knew policeofficers would be gathering for a Christmas party, and reported a robbery.

Attrial, Zeigler maintained that his wife and parents-in-law were killed duringthe course of a robbery and that Mays was involved but was killed by hisconfederates.

TrialSummary:

07/02/76         The defendant was found guilty of the following counts:

CountI:           First-DegreeMurder (Eunice Zeigler)

CountII:         First-Degree Murder(Charles Mays, Jr.)

CountIII:        Second-Degree Murder (VirginiaEdwards)

CountIV:        Second-Degree Murder (PerryEdwards)

07/16/76          Uponadvisory sentencing, the jury recommended by a majority vote a sentence of lifeimprisonment for each of the convictions.

07/16/76         Thetrial judge overruled the jury’s recommendations and sentenced the defendant asfollows:

                                    CountI:          First-DegreeMurder (Eunice Zeigler) – Death                      

CountII:         First-Degree Murder(Charles Mays, Jr.) – Death

CountIII:        Second-Degree Murder (VirginiaEdwards) – Life in Prison

CountIV:        Second-Degree Murder (PerryEdwards) – Life in Prison

ResentencingSummary:

08/17/89         Theresentencing judge overruled the jury’s recommendation of life imprisonment andresentenced the defendant to death for each of the two first-degree murderconvictions.

AppealSummary:

FloridaSupreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC#50,355

402 So.2d 365

08/13/76         Appeal filed.

06/11/81         FSC affirmed the convictions and sentences.

09/18/81         Motion for rehearing denied.

U.S.Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC#81-5908

455 U.S.1035

12/17/81         Petition filed.

03/22/82         USSC denied petition for writ of certiorari.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#81-140

02/20/81         Petition filed.

04/27/81         USDC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#82-1034

10/14/82         Petition filed.

01/03/86         USDC dismissed case.

FloridaSupreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC#62,752

421 So. 2d1

10/15/82         Petition filed.

10/18/82         FSC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#76-1076 & #76-1082

01/14/83         Motion filed.

03/25/83         Trial court denied 3.850 motion.

FloridaSupreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC#63,606

452 So.2d 537

05/02/83         Appeal filed.

06/21/84         FSC remanded for evidentiary hearing.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#76-1076 & #76-1082

08/30/84         Evidentiary hearing held.

FloridaSupreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC#63,606

473 So.2d 203

05/02/85         FSC affirmed denial of 3.850 Motion.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#86-333

01/06/86         Petition filed.

05/16/86         USDC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#82-1034

05/09/86         Motion to reopen case filed.

05/16/86         Motion denied.

FloridaSupreme Court – Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

FSC#68,765

494 So.2d 957

05/16/86         Petition filed.

05/19/86         FSC denied petition for writ of error coram nobis.

U.S.Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal

USCA#86-3310 (USDC #82-1034)

805 F.2d 1422

05/16/86         Appeal filed.

11/24/86         USCA vacated district court’s judgments and remanded.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#76-1076 & #76-1082

05/18/86         Motion filed.

05/18/86         Trial court ordered evidentiary hearing

FloridaSupreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC#68,774

494 So.2d 957

05/18/86         State filed appeal.

05/19/86         FSC reversed trial court’s order for evidentiary hearing, vacated stay.

U.S.Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal

USCA#86-3311 (USDC #86-333)

805 F.2d 1422

05/20/86         Appeal filed.

11/24/86         USCA vacated district court’s judgments and remanded.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#86-333

05/29/87         Amended petition filed.

05/04/88         USDC dismissed case without prejudice.

FloridaSupreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC#71,463

524 So.2d 419

11/18/87         Petition filed.

04/07/88         FSC vacated sentence of death, remanded for resentencing.

06/01/88         Motion for rehearing denied.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#88-5355 & 88-5356

09/14/88         Motion filed.

04/21/89         Evidentiary hearing held.

08/17/89         Trial court resentenced the defendant to death for each of the two

  first-degree murder convictions.

10/20/89         Amended motion filed.

05/27/92         Evidentiary hearing held.

06/19/92         Trial court denied 3.850 motion.

FloridaSupreme Court – Direct Appeal (RS)

FSC#74,663

580 So.2d 127

09/05/89         Appeal filed.

09/20/89         State filed cross-appeal.

04/11/91         FSC affirmed the sentences.

06/12/91         Motion for rehearing denied.

07/12/91         Mandate issued.

U.S.Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC#91-5765

502 U.S.946

09/10/91         Petition filed.

11/04/91         USSC denied petition for writ of certiorari.

FloridaSupreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC#80,176

632 So.2d 48

07/17/92         Appeal filed.

11/04/93         FSC affirmed denial of 3.850 Motion.

11/18/93         Motion for rehearing denied.

01/05/94         Mandate issued.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#88-5355 & #88-5356

03/07/94         Motion filed.

06/24/94         Trial court denied 3.850 Motion.

U.S.Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC#93-9002

513 U.S.830

04/05/94         Petition filed.

10/03/94         FSC denied petition for writ of certiorari.

FloridaSupreme Court – Appeal of 3.850 Denial

FSC#84,066

654 So.2d 1162

07/25/94         Appeal filed.

04/13/95         FSC affirmed denial of 3.850 Motion.

05/23/95         Motion for rehearing denied.

FloridaSupreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC#84,561

650 So.2d 992

10/20/94         Petition filed.

12/20/94         FSC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#82-1034

08/19/95         Petition to reopen case filed.

08/21/95         USDC granted motion to reopen case and vacated 01/03/86 dismissal.

08/21/95         Amended petition filed.

07/11/00         USDC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

U.S.District Court, Middle District – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC#86-333

08/21/95         Petition to reopen case filed.

02/08/95         USDC vacated 05/04/88 opinion, granted filing of amended petition.

02/08/96         Amended petition filed.

07/10/00         USDC denied petition for writ of habeas corpus.

07/31/00         Rehearing denied.

U.S.Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal

USCA#00-14573

345 F.3d 1300

08/29/00         Appeal filed

09/19/03         Appeal denied.

12/31/03         Rehearing denied.

StateCircuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC#88-5355

01/15/03         3.850 Motion filed.

04/19/05         Motion denied.

06/08/05         Rehearing denied.

U.S.Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC#03-10641

543 U.S.842

05/28/04         Petition filed.

10/04/04         Petition denied.

FloridaSupreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC#05-1333

967So.2d 125

08/01/05         Appeal filed.

06/28/07         FSC affirmed denial of motion

07/13/07         Motion for Rehearing filed.

10/02/07         Motion for Rehearing denied.

10/18/07         Mandate issued.

StateCircuit Court – Petition for DNA Testing

CC#88-5355 & #88-5356

08/28/09          Petitionfiled.

Warrants:

09/28/82         Death warrant signed by Governor Graham.

10/22/82         Scheduled execution date.

10/19/82         United States District Court, Northern District, granted stay of execution.

04/18/86         Death warrant signed by Governor Graham.

05/20/86         Scheduled execution date.

05/18/86         United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, granted stay of execution.

FactorsContributing to the Delay in the Imposition of Sentence:

Contributorsto the delays in this case are:  a resentencing, which essentially startedthe appeals process anew; the sheer number of appeals the defendant as filed at28; the defendant’s first direct appeal, which was decided nearly five yearsafter filing; Zeigler’s third 3.850 motion that was in the trial court fornearly four years; two federal habeas petitions that were in U.S. DistrictCourt for five years; and apparent “confusion, misunderstanding, inadvertence,changes in representation, (and) recalcitrant counsel,” as cited by the 11thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals considering Zeigler’s federal habeas petitions inthe mid-1980s, factors the court said had the effect of denying the defendantthe opportunity to have his claims “effectively presented and fully consideredin federal court.”  These factors complicated and prolonged the federalappeals.

Caseinformation:

Zeiglerfiled a direct appeal in the Florida Supreme Court in 1976.  While thecase was pending, the defendant petitioned the U.S. District Court, MiddleDistrict, for a writ of habeas corpus.  In 1981, the Florida Supreme Courtaffirmed the convictions and sentences and the district court denied the habeaspetition.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on the direct appealthe following year.

Thesigning of Zeigler’s first death warrant in 1982 prompted the filing of asecond habeas petition with the U.S. District Court and a habeas in the FloridaSupreme Court.  The Florida Supreme Court denied the habeas petition threedays after filing.  The district court stayed the execution and, indismissing the case in 1986, directed Zeigler to initiate all available stateappeals before approaching the court again.

In 1983,the defendant filed his first 3.850 motion in the trial court, which wasdenied.  On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court held that of the 19 pointsargued in the motion, all but two were, or could have been, raised at trial oron direct appeal and were not cognizable under rule 3.850.  The court didconsider two claims:  that Zeigler did not receive effective counsel attrial, and that his right to due process and a fair trial was violated becausethe trial judge was actually or potentially biased.  The Florida SupremeCourt in 1984 remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the possible bias of thetrial judge.  After the hearing, the trial court again rejected the claimand the Florida Supreme Court affirmed in 1985.

Zeigler fileda third habeas petition in the U.S. District Court in January 1986.  InMay of that year a second death warrant was signed and a number of appealsfollowed.  The defendant petitioned the district court to reopen his 1982federal habeas case.  The district court denied both requests and Zeiglerappealed the two cases to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which granteda stay of execution, vacated the district court’s judgments and remanded. Also in 1986, Zeigler filed his second 3.850 motion with the trial court, whichordered an evidentiary hearing on one of his claims concerning restrictions onthe presentation of nonstatutory mitigating factors.  The state appealed,and in a consolidated opinion the Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court’sdecision, denied all 3.850 relief and denied the defendant’s petition for awrit of error coram nobis.

In 1987,the defendant amended his 1986 federal habeas petition and filed with thedistrict court.  The following year, the court dismissed the case withoutprejudice.  Zeigler filed his second state habeas petition in the FloridaSupreme Court in 1987.  He claimed he was entitled to relief underHitchcock v. Dugger, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found reversible errorwhere the jury was instructed to consider only statutorily enumeratedmitigating circumstances and where the trial judge declined to considernonstatutory mitigating circumstances.  In its 1988 opinion, the FloridaSupreme Court agreed and vacated the sentence and remanded for an evidentiaryhearing.  Because the jury had already rendered an advisory sentence oflife imprisonment, the court directed that the hearing occur only before ajudge.

In 1988,a third 3.850 motion to address issues arising out of the conviction phase wasfiled and the trial court venue was moved from the Fourth Circuit back to theNinth Circuit with new case numbers.  While the motion was pending, thecourt resentenced Zeigler to death in 1989.  The defendant filed a directappeal and the sentence and the state cross-appealed the trial judge’s failureto find an aggravating circumstance during resentencing.  In 1991, thestate supreme court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and the U.S. SupremeCourt denied the defendant’s petition for certiorari.

In the 3.850motion that had been pending during resentencing, Zeigler made five claimsalleging misconduct by the state and the trial judge.  The trial court in1992 ruled all the claims were procedurally barred and denied the motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed on appeal in 1993 and the U.S. Supreme Courtdenied certiorari review.  The defendant in 1994 filed his fourth 3.850motion with the trial court, which was denied.  The Florida Supreme Courtaffirmed the decision in 1995.

Thedefendant in 1994 filed his third habeas petition in the Florida SupremeCourt.  He claimed the high court erred by not conducting a meaningfulreview of the resentencing judge’s override of the jury recommendation of lifeimprisonment, that the supreme court erred in applying the “avoiding lawfularrest” aggravating circumstance in the case, that the court erred in affirmingthe doubling of aggravating circumstances in the Mays murder, that the courterred in relying on a precedent rejected in Espinoza v. Florida to uphold the“heinous, atrocious and cruel” aggravating circumstance, and that the deathsentence should be set aside because the jury recommendation of lifeimprisonment was based on the panel’s residual doubt about Zeigler’sguilt.  The court without comment denied the petition in 1994.

Zeiglerin 1995 petitioned U.S. District Court to reopen his federal habeascases.  The court in 1996 vacated its previous opinions and reopened thecases.  The defendant filed amended habeas petitions in 1995 and1996.  The court denied both in July 2000 and Zeigler appealed to the 11thCircuit U.S. Court of Appeals.  That appeal was denied 09/19/03 and therehearing was denied 12/31/03.

Zeiglerfiled a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court on 1/15/03, which was denied on04/19/05.

Zeiglerfiled a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on05/28/04, which was denied on 10/04/04.

On08/01/05, Zeigler filed a 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.  On06/28/07, the FSC affirmed the denial of the motion.  On 07/13/07, Zeiglerfiled a Motion for Rehearing, which was denied on 10/02/07.  The FloridaSupreme Court issued a mandate in this case on 10/18/07.

Zeiglerfiled a Petition for DNA testing in the State Circuit Court on 08/28/09. Thispetition is currently pending.

InstitutionalAdjustment:

__________________________________________________________________

Reported        04/27/01          TB

Approved       04/30/01          WHS

Updated         09/30/10          EMJ