Zeigler v. State, 116 So. 3d 255

Zeigler was convicted in 1976 of first-degree murders of his wife Eunice Zeigler and Charlie Mays, and second-degree murders of his in-laws.
He pursued postconviction relief in multiple state proceedings; the court ordered resentencing in 1989, with two death sentences affirmed on appeal in 1991.
In 2001 Zeigler sought re-examination and DNA testing; the motion was granted and subsequent testing occurred.
After testing, Zeigler moved to vacate sentences and seek nunc pro tunc DNA testing; the trial court denied, and the appellate court affirmed in 2007.
In 2009 Zeigler filed another DNA testing motion under Rule 3.853 seeking testing of numerous items; an evidentiary hearing was held and the circuit court denied.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding collateral estoppel barred relief and, on the merits, Zeigler failed to show a reasonable probability of acquittal or lesser sentence from the requested testing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel bars Zeigler's motion	Zeigler argues collateral estoppel should not bar his claims	State asserts issues were fully litigated previously and are barred	Barred; collateral estoppel applies
Whether Zeigler is entitled to postconviction DNA testing on the merits	Zeigler contends new testing could show innocence or reduced sentence	State contends testing would not create a reasonable probability of acquittal or lesser sentence	Not entitled; no reasonable probability of different outcome shown

Zeigler v. State, 967 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2007) (DNA results not exculpatory; collateral estoppel and merits discussed)
Consalvo v. State, 3 So.3d 1014 (Fla. 2009) (burden to show how DNA testing will exonerate or mitigate sentence)
Robinson v. State, 865 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 2004) (standard for DNA testing impact on innocence or sentencing)
Willacy v. State, 967 So.2d 131 (Fla. 2007) (requirement to show probability of acquittal or lesser sentence)
King v. State, 808 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 2002) (denial of DNA testing without showing probable acquittal)
Scott v. State, 46 So.3d 529 (Fla. 2009) (DNA testing denied where no reasonable probability of acquittal)