Zeigler: Appeal Denied by the Florida Supreme Court last Nov 13, 2013. Here is the decision in pdf format:
The newly discovered evidence hinged on the false arrest report by Det. Frye. It is discussed here. What are the consequences of the false arrest report and the lies told by Detective Frye under oath? We have to go back to the first trial when Mr. Zeigler was defended by Mr. Ralph V. Hadley, III.
Mr. Hadley started the Zeigler trial from the assumption that the documents he had received were correct. His private investigator, Gene Anan, who checked the facts in the case could not find a Robert Foster. Detective Frye continuously told the defense that he did not know a Robert Foster. He even stated so on the stand and that there had just been a typographical error in the arrest report. Therefore, Hadley and the rest of the Zeigler defense team relied on the state’s assertions that: Robert Foster did not exist, that Frye had not spoken to a man named Robert Foster and that there was no involvement of a man named Robert Foster in the Zeigler case. Frye signed a new arrest report dated March 26, 1976 leaving out any information about a man called Robert Foster.
If Hadley had evidence that Robert Foster did exist, he would have undermined the credibility of one of the state’s own witnesses. The state has an obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any favourable evidence even if that meant it could impeach their own witnesses.
As you can see in the decision, the Florida Supreme Court “affirm[s] the denial of Zeigler’s Brady claims because he has failed to meet the prejudice prong. Even if we accepted Zeigler’s assertions as true, there is no “reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
If everything had been disclosed, it would have made a difference.
What is next? I honestly do not know.