Honorable Bill McCollum, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 In Re: Investigation of the Need for Legislation to Protect Citizens from a Biased Judiciary Dear Mr. Attorney General: Perhaps the most obvious indication of bias in our system of justice is the alarming number of convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence after years of injustice. As you may know, the Orlando Sentinel called upon the governor in a December 15 editorial to investigate the cases of William Dillon and Wilton Dedge, (see the attached) who were convicted on the basis of testimony which a court found to be fraudulent many years before their exoneration by DNA evidence. Clearly, the fact that relief on appeal of a criminal conviction is generally remanded to the same judicial circuit which prosecuted the appellant ensures that any bias that may have occurred in the original trial will filter the appeal process as well. The Florida Supreme Court recently acknowledged this possibility in the case of death row inmate Jerry Wickham. The problem of bias is compounded by the likelihood that the same judge and prosecutor may be in control of the case during multiple appeals. My advocacy for legislation to reduce the likelihood of bias in our judicial system has been inspired by my knowledge of the case of 32 year death row inmate, William Thomas Zeigler. As a citizen advocate on Mr. Zeigler’s behalf, I am no doubt susceptible to allegations of bias myself. Such allegations not withstanding, I know in my own heart that my motives derive solely from a belief in the innocence of this man whom I had never met until less than a year ago. With this disclaimer, I ask you to consider two requests. My first request is for you to review the enclosed draft Judicial Fair Play Bill and consider how legislation to accomplish its objectives might be introduced into Florida law. Sen. Victor Crist said recently that the proposed bill “has merit” and that he would file it if there was a house companion. The bill’s purpose is to provide an objective venue for consideration of credible allegations of bias against members of the judiciary or prosecution after a conviction, to provide an objective means for exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the original jury to be heard by a new jury, and to provide for rules that will allow DNA evidence to be heard by a new jury if the DNA refutes the theory of the prosecution in the original trial. The second request is that you review the enclosed material concerning the Zeigler case and initiate an investigation of the facts that have led almost 300 people to sign a petition to Gov. Crist asking for Mr. Zeigler’s release from prison. Under Tab L of the enclosed document package are selected comments from individuals who have signed the online petition. To view all of the names and comments, please go to www.petitiononline.com/tzeigler. There may be little precedent for an investigation by an attorney general of a crime that is considered to be solved, but a precedent I offer for consideration is the investigation of the unsolved murder of civil rights activist, Harry Moore, by your predecessor. That case has some striking similarities to the Zeigler murder case in that Mr. Moore, who was killed in 1951, and Mr. Zeigler, who was almost killed 24 years later during the crime for which he stands convicted, may have been targeted by elements of the Ku Klux Klan for the efforts both Mr. Moore and Mr. Zeigler were involved in to give blacks fair treatment. According to the conclusion of the executive summary of the report by Attorney General Crist, there was still reluctance on the part of some policemen in 2004 in the west Orange County area to talk about the murder of Harry Moore 50 years earlier because of the fear of possible retribution. The executive summary says on page 8: In 1975, Mr. Zeigler, as a civic minded business owner, provided credit to black customers on equal terms with whites and was very instrumental in saving the business of a black friend which was under attack by elements that may have been involved in loan sharking activities which exploited blacks. That motive for the crime was never investigated because State Attorney Robert Eagan specifically forbade it. (See the memo dated March 12, 1976, under Tab X ) The fact that the judge who presided at the Zeigler trial had been a character witness opposing Zeigler in the trial of Mr. Zeigler’s black friend whose business was under attack is such a glaring breach of judicial ethics that it seems unbelievable that that breach of ethics in itself would not have gained Mr. Zeigler a new trial.(For a discussion of this, please see the attorney’s memorandum under Tab E.) Another issue that needs investigation is the thirteen page police report written in December 1975 by Oakland police chief Robert Thompson who took Zeigler to the hospital. The report describes the blood around Zeigler’s entry and exit wounds as being dry, however, the only police report provided to the defense was a one page summary which made no mention of the blood. Two pages of the thirteen page report which was not found until 1989 as the result of an FOIA request and the one page summary may be seen under Tab H. Since the prosecution’s theory was that Zeigler had shot himself after calling police, there is reason to believe that the one page summary report was given to the defense with the intention of covering up the more complete 13 page report. Another exculpatory piece of evidence which was found during the FOIA request was a transcript of an interview with a person staying in the motel behind the Zeigler furniture store the night of the murders. This testimony, which the writer verified in 2007 during a phone conversation with the individual, would have supported Zeigler’s belief that there may have been police involvement in the crime. (See Tab K for a copy of this transcript.) Combined with the prosecution’s forbidding any investigation of the loan sharking motive and the hidden police report, there appears to be a pattern of prosecutorial bias against Zeigler. This pattern of bias is compounded by the fact that the prosecution was willing to accept the story of Edward Williams, a man who had one of the murder weapons in his possession after the murders, that Zeigler had given him the gun before Zeigler shot himself, instead of accepting Mr. Zeigler’s story that he was himself a victim. The gun in Williams’ possession was a gun Zeigler had kept in his truck. No one planning a murder would have used this gun without implicating himself in the crime. The same man’s testimony also tied two other guns used in the crime to Zeigler. That testimony was corroborated by a man who later was discovered to be a relative of Williams. One aspect of Williams' testimony was that Zeigler gave him the gun which he turned over to police after it failed to fire because Zeigler had forgotten to reload it after using it to kill some of the other victims. This aspect should be investigated because of the parallel between the idea of attempting to shoot a gun loaded with spent shell casings was also involved in the never solved murder of another Winter Garden store owner, Shorty Reddick, a few years earlier. The video taped deposition of retired Orange County detective Tommy DeMars (now deceased) indicates that DeMars found evidence that Charlie Mays was the killer of Reddick. DeMars was investigating the loan sharking activities prior to the Zeigler murders. This deposition will be provided upon request. The bias that appears to permeate the Zeigler case extends to the blood expert who testified for the prosecution. This man made the absurd claim in a letter to me in 2008 that Zeigler had likely “fondled, licked, or sucked Mr. Mays’ gentiles.” Mays was one of the victims whom Zeigler claimed was one of the perpetrators and was killed by his confederates after being injured during a struggle with Zeigler. (See Tab M) The bias extends to Assistant Attorney General Nunnelly who, during oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court in 2007, said that a motive for the crime was “marital discord.” As Zeigler’s defense lawyer pointed out, no such motive was advanced at trial. The unsupported theory of marital discord based on homosexual proclivities was presented to the grand jury and was touted in the news media at the time. Obviously, these rumors affected not only the prosecution expert, but the attorney general’s office itself. Finally, the bias against Mr. Zeigler extends to the Federal District Court where the trial judge has been a judge for many years and may have been in a position to influence federal appeals, and also to the Florida Supreme Court. There are reports that Federal District Judge Maurice Paul (the trial judge) was on temporary assignment to the 11th DCA during one appeal by Zeigler. Supreme Court Justice Wells was a close friend and advisor to the sheriff of Orange County who arrested Zeigler and had personal knowledge of the case when Zeigler's appeal of the DNA evidence was rejected by the FSC in 2007. The writer’s complaint to the JQC pointing out the violation of Canon 3E of the Judicial Code of Conduct was recently rejected. (See Tab N.) Canon 3 E states in part: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the judge (has) personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Mr. McCollum, most people believe that our judicial process works to correct egregious errors. That this case illustrates the fallacy of that belief may be attributed to a set of circumstances that have kept the same prosecutor and the same judge in positions of power for over thirty years. Those unusual circumstances are addressed by the Judicial Fair Play bill. Only you, sir, have the power and influence to address the injustice to Mr. Zeigler. Sincerely yours, Raymond T. McEachern Attachments | 
