Why Zeigler was So Unpopular with Some Local Business Interests

In the 1989 nationally syndicated television program on the case, A Matter of Life and Death, television journalist Ike Pappas noted:

“Zeigler was attempting to clean up corruption right in his hometown of Winter Garden, Florida. He was helpful in shutting down the old Edgewater Hotel, a center of prostitution and drug dealing. But he was also trying to gather information on other illegal activities such as gun running and, most importantly, loan sharking. The loan sharks made a fortune letting [black] migrant workers buy groceries on credit at an interest rate of 520% per year. And Tommy Zeigler alleges that certain members of the Winter Garden police force were in on the action.”

Zeigler described what was going on at the Edgewater Hotel in the heart of Winter Garden:

“You’ve got a police car sitting out in front of the place and a cop sitting behind the counter. If anything got out of line, they would simply beat the [black] people up and dance them out the back door. This is not something that I was told, but something that I have seen….”

In the mid-70s, Zeigler tried to obtain the assistance of the Police Chief, the Fire Chief and even the Code Enforcement Officer of Winter Garden in shutting down the Edgewater Hotel. None would help. Finally, he obtained assistance from the Hotel and Restaurant Commission Inspector from the state capital in Tallahassee, Mr. Merritt (now deceased). The hotel was closed for good.

Zeigler did not give in to the threats on his life by local police. He kept fighting to help the blacks in his community. The white loan sharks moved to take the only black-owned liquor license in the area by framing the owner, Andrew James. Andrew James was charged with one count of selling marijuana behind his bar. The state agent on the case was a local man, Mr. Baker.

Zeigler arranged for an attorney for the black man, Andrew James, and testified as his character witness. The character witness for the white man on the other side was Judge Maurice Paul.Tommy’s side won and Andrew James kept his liquor license. The local racial tumult was so severe a riot broke out and Mr. Baker’s house was burned. Zeigler tells what happened then:

“When you get stopped by a cop on Main Street and he tells you he’s going to kill you if you don’t get your nose out of his business, what’s to stop him?”

Missteps of Judge Maurice Paul in the case of William “Tommy” Zeigler

For questions and elaboration, contact Attorney Vernon Davids, Englewood, FL (941) 764-8110

1. Judge Paul failed to recuse himself as Zeigler’s trial judge even though, in a hotly contested prior case, Paul had been a character witness for a crooked State Beverage agent and Zeigler’s testimony directly created great doubt as to the credibility of that agent's testimony.

White loan sharks moved to take the only black-owned liquor license in the area by framing the owner, Andrew James. Andrew James was charged with one count of selling marijuana behind his bar. The state agent on the case was a local man, Mr. Baker.

Zeigler arranged for an attorney for the black man, Andrew James, and testified as his character witness. The character witness for the white man on the other side was Judge Maurice Paul. Zeigler’s side won: Andrew James kept his liquor license. The local racial tumult was so severe a riot broke out and Mr. Baker’s house was burned. Just a few months later the Zeigler family store was hit, a quadruple murder on Christmas Eve 1975.

Request For A New Judge

On May 22, 1976 the defense asked Judge Paul to disqualify himself from Zeigler’s case. Not only had Paul and Zeigler been on opposite sides of the Andrew James case, but it had been a rancorous, bitter case and Zeigler was closely identified with James. The motion included affidavits claiming that Paul’s demeanor in court, his voice and manner showed prejudice against the defense. [163-164 FF] Paul denied the motion. Paul would be Zeigler’s judge.

This resulted in an extraordinary situation. During the trial Zeigler’s lawyer called Andrew James as a witness, hoping both to dispel the image of Zeigler as a man who contemptuously manipulated his black acquaintances and to establish that Zeigler had made enemies of powerful criminal elements in his hometown. [211 FF] At one point, Zeigler’s lawyer explained to the Court that he wanted to show a motive for revenge against Zeigler.

Judge Paul asked: “Is it some of the loan sharks or law enforcement people who are seeking revenge? Is that what you are saying?”

Zeigler’s lawyer answered yes, that was the theory. [213 FF]

2. Judge Paul refused a continuance of the trial to allow the defense to prepare even though Zeigler waived his right to a speedy trial. (Trail Counsel)

3. It has been alleged that Judge Paul met with the State Attorney, Detective Leigh McEachern, Don Fry, and others a few days before the trial and discussed the trial; and that Judge Paul made the comment “Bob, get me one first-degree [conviction] and I’ll fry the son of a bitch.”

The Secret Meeting

In 1981, former OCSO officer Leigh McEachern claimed that he was present at a pretrial conference at which Judge Paul discussed the evidence in Zeigler’s case with State Attorney Robert Eagan, Inspector Frye and a third party.

McEachern had been the chief deputy to Sheriff Colman in 1976. He made this charge from a prison camp in northern Florida where he was serving a sentence after being convicted of embezzling from his department’s investigative funds.

According to McEachern, the illegal meeting took place in a conference room of the offices of the state attorney. He said that Eagan outlined for Paul the major points in the State’s case, including the expected testimony of the State’s expert Professor MacDonell.

McEachern claimed that as the meeting broke up, Judge Paul told Eagan, “Bob, get me one first-degree [conviction] and I’ll fry the son of a bitch.” McEachern said that he later mentioned the meeting to Colman, but did nothing else. He said that he decided to come forward after the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Zeigler’s conviction and sentence.

Such a conference would have been completely improper. Eagan, Frye and Judge Paul all denied that the meeting had taken place. There was a hearing on this in August 1984. Zeigler’s attorneys tried to establish a judicial conspiracy against him based on ill will from the Andrew James matter. Circuit Judge James Stroker ruled that the Zeigler’s claim was without substance, although he admitted that he could find no obvious motive for McEachern to have lied. [FF 244-245]

In America (including Florida), people are regularly convicted and sentenced to prison based on uncorroborated testimony of jailhouse witnesses who are promised leniency, sentence reductions or money for their testimony.

Here, the testimony of a man in prison who had nothing to gain from his testimony—in fact, he could only expect retribution from the criminal justice system for testifying against the credibility of a Circuit Judge and a State Prosecuting Attorney—was discounted as without substance.

4. Judge Paul was rude and disrespectful on the bench prior to and during the trial so much so that at least one juror said Judge Paul convinced her that he believed in Zeigler’s guilt. Allegedly, Judge Paul secretly gave Valium to the holdout juror who caved in shortly after taking the medication. The defense did not know about it until the investigative report television show "A Matter of Life and Death" was being produced.

A Problematic Jury

The trial, which was moved to Jacksonville because of publicity in Orange County, began on June 8, 1976.

The jury began deliberations at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the 30th. The jury consisted of six blacks and six whites, three men and nine women

“The jury deliberations were unusually tumultuous and riddled with transgressions. After an initial vote in which the jurors split evenly, with six voting in favor of conviction and six voting in favor of acquittal, the jury deliberated for two and one-half days. On the 3rd day of deliberations, one juror who continued to believe in [Zeigler’s] innocence, Irma Brickel, appears to have suffered a nervous breakdown leading to several fainting spells. The trial judge then telephoned Ms. Brickel’s personal physician and persuaded him to authorize a prescription of Valium for her over the telephone….Shortly after taking the medication, at 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 1976…Ms. Brickel abandoned her position and the jury voted to convict….” [SAP at 8-9]

Subsequent to the case, another juror, Ms. Dollinger, disclosed that: [SAP at 85]
The atmosphere during the jury deliberations was one of open hostility. In addition, there was a great amount of intimidation…“I suppose it could even have come to actual violence. It was a very frightening situation.”
Many times when juror Brickel would try to talk, juror Roberts would come up behind her and click one of the pistols behind her head. (This is a reference to one of the many guns that were in evidence which, apparently, were in the jury room).

Subsequently, Ms. Brickel related that: [SAP at 86]
Immediately after the foreman was elected, he made a statement to the effect that he had made up his mind 2 weeks before.
When she suggested getting a mannequin to examine the bloodstains on Eunice Zeigler’s clothing she was told that since she was approximately the same size she could put them on and get a feel for the situation; and that this statement was made in an extremely abusive manner.
She had requested help from the Court and could not understand why nothing was done.
Her illness during the jury deliberations was a direct result of the pressure she was being put under to change her vote.
That when she was interviewed by the Judge she felt that he was extremely angry with her for causing trouble and did not really want her to talk.
The Atlanta Constitution reported that Lee Williams, one of the jurors and now a lawyer, said “there were problems” during the jury’s deliberations and that “there were some things that should not have happened” in the jury room. [SAP at 88]

In fact, even though the jurors have been interviewed by the press concerning their deliberations in this case and news stories have appeared in various publications, including a front-page series in the Atlanta Constitution, Zeigler’s attorneys have been and still are prohibited from talking to the juror’s by Judge Paul’s injunction—which the Courts have continued in effect. [SAP at 89]

5. Judge Paul ruled against Zeigler on virtually every motion—even ones where real prejudice to justice were involved. For example:

A key issue in the prosecution case was their explanation of the bloody footprints. Frye, and the criminologist he consulted, both asserted that they must have been left by the murderer. Tom Delaney, the FBI specialist who examined the prints, stated that they could not have been left by Zeigler's shoes.

Delaney testified to this effect in court - a valuable defense witness. Due to a tight schedule he was only available for a very short period of time and had to leave as soon as he had vacated the witness stand. Zeigler’s defense attorneys allowed him to leave because the prosecution had not disclosed tests made by their witness to rebut the FBI testimony. Otherwise they would have kept Delaney for rebuttal of the prosecution’s tests.

Once Delaney left and was no longer available to testify, the prosecution surprised the defense with introduction of undisclosed tests.

One of the very next witnesses the prosecution called was Frye's consultant criminologist, Herbert MacDonell who proceeded to rebut all that had been stated by Tom Delaney, who was no longer available to defend his findings.

Zeigler's defense attorneys were, not surprisingly, insufficiently knowledgeable of this branch of forensic science to mount a counter-defense without the FBI expert. Zeigler’s attorneys objected to this unfair tactic but, true to form, Judge Paul ruled for the prosecution. [FF at 167-171]

6. After the jury recommended life Judge Paul fulfilled his alleged promise to the State Attorney and sentenced Zeigler to death.

After the sentencing hearing on July 16, the jury deliberated for only 25 minutes before returning with a verdict for a life sentence. Under the circumstances, the extraordinary speed of the jury decision for life imprisonment can only be explained as the result of a compromise over lingering doubts about Zeigler’s innocence. [SAP at 10]

Judge Paul, who had refused to disqualify himself, immediately rejected the jury’s decision and sentenced Zeigler to death. [SAP at 10]

7. After jury misconduct came to light Judge Paul interrogated members of the jury in such a manner as to box them in and refused to allow any questions by Zeiglers lawyers about the pertinent issues. (Trial Counsel)

8. After the cursory hearing with the jurors Judge Paul entered an injunction prohibiting Zeigler's lawyers from ever talking to the jurors. That injunction is still in effect.

In fact, even though the jurors have been interviewed by the press concerning their deliberations in this case and news stories have appeared in various publications, including a front-page series in the Atlanta Constitution, Zeigler’s attorneys have been and still are prohibited from talking to the juror’s by Judge Paul’s injunction—which the Courts have continued in effect. [SAP at 89]

The 11th Circuit held against Zeigler on his appeal saying that Zeigler had not met the burden of showing that the evidence hidden by the state would have made a difference in the jury verdict. This is especially ironic given the following development.

On February 26, 2003, Ms. Peggy A. Dollinger, a juror in the original trial of William “Thomas” Zeigler, signed a sworn affidavit stating that if the hidden evidence had come to light during the trial, she would have voted “not guilty.”

Unfortunately, the attorneys for Zeigler are still barred from any contact with the original jurors because of the Court order of Judge Maurice Paul. Consequently, no one seems to be able to introduce the affidavit in court. And incredible decisions like that of the 11th Circuit, claiming that no showing has been made that the evidence hidden by the state could have changed the outcome of the trial, were being handed down almost a year after that affidavit has been signed.

9. Judge Paul denied a motion for a new trial. (Trial Counsel)

10. Judge Paul became a federal district court judge in the northern district of Florida. He was in Tallahassee when Zeigler's direct appeal was filed. He and Florida Supreme Court Justice McDonald, another Orange County Circuit Court Judge were great friends. McDonald was a judge in Orange County during Zeigler's trial and was a Florida Supreme Court Justice when Zeigler's appeal was decided and denied (although he abstained from the written opinion). (Trial Counsel)

11. Judge Paul, as the senior federal district court judge in his district, sat on the 11th Circuit during the period Zeigler's appeal from denial of habeas corpus was heard (although he did not sit on the panel). The appeal was denied. (Trail Counsel)

Judge Maurice Paul is now a U.S. Federal Judge (District) on the Senior Bench in Florida. He was on special assignment to the 11th Circuit when the appeal of Zeigler’s case was denied.

How did the Federal District Court (as affirmed by the 11th Circuit) handle Judge Paul’s missteps?
They protected Judge Maurice Paul by dispensing with the facts and hammering Zeigler with “procedural bar.” (Paragraph section numbers correspond to the SAP and ODR)

IV. Juror Misconduct:

A. Juror Brickell’s Request To Speak With The Trial Court During The Jury’s Deliberations: The trial court record of the discussion is insufficient to establish a constitutional claim.
Held: [The benefit of the doubt goes to the system] The exchange between Judge Paul and Juror Brickell was not significant to the outcome of the case. [ODR at 95]

B. Judge Paul Contacted Juror Brickell’s Physician To Obtain Valium For Her: Even though Judge Paul imposed a gag order prohibiting Ziegler’s attorneys from ever talking to the jurors, “the Court finds the lack of factual foundation extremely crucial to the resolution [of this issue.]” Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner.
Held: [The benefit of the doubt goes to the system] Claim Denied. [ODR at 103]

C-D-E. Juror Bias and Prejudice, Juror Coercion and Juror Alcohol Consumption: Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner.
Held: Claim Cannot Be Heard Because of Procedural Bar. [ODR at 105]


F. Outside Influences Impaired The Jury From Performing Its Constitutional Functions:

1. Juror’s Minister Laying On of Hands To Relieve Juror Of Any Personal Responsibility For The Verdict: Court says that such conduct would clearly invalidate the verdict. [ODR at 106] But, Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner.
Held: Claim Cannot Be Heard Because of Procedural Bar. [ODR at 106]

2. Other Outside Contact With Newspapers And News Program:
Held: Harmless. Claim denied. [ODR at 107]


IV. Jury Verdict Was The Result Of An Improper Compromise Resulting From Residual Doubt About Ziegler’s Guilt: Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner. Held: Claim Cannot Be Heard Because of Procedural Bar. [ODR at 113]


XI . Judge Paul Was Biased Against And Hostile Toward Ziegler:

A. Judge Paul and Ziegler Were Character Witnesses On Opposite Sides Of A Case Just Six Months Before The Crime And One Year Before The Trial:
Held: Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner. Claim Cannot Be Heard Because of Procedural Bar. [ODR at 132]

B. Judge Paul Was Hostile Toward Ziegler:

1. And Ruled Against Him In The Case: Court says: “While the record does reflect adverse rulings against [Ziegler], no basis exists for the conclusion that Judge Paul exhibited hostility toward or prejudice against Ziegler. [ODR at 137]

2. Jurors Perceived Judge Paul To Be Against Ziegler:
Held: Ziegler’s attorneys could and should have done something sooner. Claim Cannot Be Heard Because of Procedural Bar. [ODR at 137]


C. Leigh McEachern (former Chief Deputy Sheriff of Orange County) Gave an Affidavit Alleging Judicial Bias:
Held: [The benefit of the doubt goes to the system] “This Court is of the opinion that … the meeting did not take place and the alleged statement was never made.”