The Commission on Capital Cases updates this informationregularly.  This information; however, is subject to change and may not reflectthe latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied upon forstatistical or legal purposes. 

BIGHAM, Eddie (B/M)

DC# 067292

DOB: 08/23/1957

­­­Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, Case #03-2566CF

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Edwin M. Fry, Jr.

Attorneys, Trial: Mark V. Harllee & John Unruh-Assistant Public Defenders

Attorneys, Direct Appeal: Jeffrey L. Anderson- AssistantPublic Defender

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: TBA

Date of Offense: 05/24/03

Date of Sentence: 01/11/05

Circumstances of Offense:

Eddie Bigham, the defendant, wasconvicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Lourdes Cavazos-Blandin,also known as Lulu.

Jose Guillermo, also known asOscar, testified that on May 23, 2003, he and Lulu went to bed at 10:30 PM.They had vaginal sex. Oscar testified that he never had anal sex with his wife.When Oscar woke up at 6:30 AM, Lulu was gone. Oscar was not worried becauseLulu would frequently leave during the night. Oscar testified he knew Lulu wasgoing out at night but he did not know she was going out with other men.

Bigham testified he had sex withLulu twice that evening- once at a friend’s house and later outside in thebushes. Bigham testified he could not recall if he penetrated her rectum ornot. After the second time they had sex, he noticed the condom was not on whenhe pulled out. Bigham testified he saw Lulu dressing as he left.

On the morning of May 24, 2003Dennis Lewis found Lulu’s body in the woods while on his way to work. Her bodywas nude except for a bra which was rolled up over her breasts. A pair of denimshorts, a T-shirt, and a pair of panties had been folded and placed on top ofthe body. There was dirt on the shorts. There were pine needles on her back butthere was no dirt. Five hairs were found under the clothing laid on the body. Ablack condom was found inside the rectum. A condom wrapper was found 1 footfrom the street.

Seminal fluid of the victim’shusband was found on the outside of the condom, on the panties of the victim,and on the white T-shirt. Two seminal fluid stains on the T-shirt came solely fromthe husband. Seminal fluid containing Eddie Bigham’s DNA was found on theoutside and inside of the condom, on the white T-shirt, and on the pocketlining of the victim’s shorts. A vaginal swab found a mixture of two DNAsources from two individuals. The vaginal swab contained nothing from Oscar.

The victim’s T-shirt alsocontained fecal stains in addition to the semen and blood. The stain on theT-shirt was consistent with the wiping off of an erect penis. Forensictechnician Earl Ritzline testified that he could not determine whose penis waswiped on the T-shirt.

One hair matching Bigham wasfound on the victim. The other hairs found on Lulu’s body were determined tohave come from someone other than the victim. However, they could not bematched to any specific individual. Two bloodstains matching Bigham’s DNA werefound on the T-shirt.

Forensic technician EarlRitzline testified that there was no evidence of anything other than consensualsex. Ritzline testified that because “such a small quantity” of blood was onthe clothing he could not indicate if there was a struggle..

The forensic evidence could notbe used to determine conclusively whether Oscar had sex with Lulu before orafter Bigham. However, Ritzling testified that the most plausible scenariobased upon the physical evidence was that Lulu first had vaginal sex without acondom with her husband Oscar. She then dressed, putting on her panties underher shorts. There was clear evidence of drainage of Oscar’s semen into thepanties, which is consistent with her walking while dressed. She then had sexwith Bigham, both vaginally and anally. The vaginal intercourse with Bighamwould have naturally pushed Oscar’s semen out and onto the upper region of theoutside of the condom. Bigham also ejaculated onto the pocket area of hershorts while they were inside out and pulled down based upon the spread of thestain. He left the condom in her anus. She did not stand or dress afterBigham’s sodomy since neither fecal matter nor Bigham’s semen ended up on herpanties or the crotch area of her shorts.

Deputy Medical Examiner Dr.Charles Diggs testified the victim’s cause of death was manual strangulation.He also found no trauma to the body to indicate that a struggle took place. Hetestified that the time of death was most likely around 1 or 2 AM.

On July 1, 2003 officers fromthe Ft. Pierce Police Department interviewed Bigham. Bigham denied anyinvolvement in the murder.

Prior Incarceration History in the State of Florida:

Trial Summary:

07/28/03          Indictedas follows:

                                    CountI:           First-Degree Murder

                                    CountII:         Kidnapping

                                    CountIII:        Sexual Battery

11/12/04          Juryreturned a guilty verdict for the first-degree murder charge; the court

granteda motion for acquittal for the kidnapping and sexual battery charges

11/15/04          Jury recommendeddeath by a vote of 12-0

01/11/05          Sentencedas follows:

                                    CountI:           First-Degree Murder – Death Sentence

Appeal Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 05-245

02/04/05          Appeal filed

00/00/00          Appeal denied

Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition ofSentence:

The appeals processappears to be within acceptable timeframes.

Case Information:

On 12/13/05, thedefendant raised the following issues in a direct appeal: court’s denial ofmotion for acquittal; insufficient evidence to establish premeditation; juryselection, instructions, and deliberation; presentation of inappropriatetestimony and evidence; prosecutor’s prejudicial remarks; pretrial conferencesconducted in defendant’s absence; denial of defendant’s motion to suppress;inappropriate classification of the crime as heinous, atrocious, or cruel;trial court’s failure to make the findings required for the death penalty;improper weight to mitigating and aggravating circumstances; disproportionatenature of death sentence; unconstitutionality of death penalty. The appeal wasdenied by the Florida Supreme Court on

Report Date:   00/00/00          Initials

Approved:       00/00/00          Initials

Updated:         00/00/00          Initials