But Stone v. Powell, a 1976 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, virtually ended the right of defendants to appeal Fourth Amendment rulings by state supreme courts.  Defendants may still apply to the High Court, but the chances of review there are almost nil.  In essence, clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court, who screen writs and submissions, are now the sole federal watchdogs of the states' compliance with Fourth Amendment rights.

Davids did file a writ of certiorari—a petition for review—which the U.S. Supreme Court denied in 1982, opening the way for the first of the death warrants against Tommy Zeigler.

"We have carefully examined the thirty-two volumes of record in this case and carefully considered the brief of the defendant," said the opinion by the Florida supreme court.

Actually, though, that opinion contains at least one serious misstatement of the facts.  Justice Adkins described Thomas Delaney's footprint testimony this way (emphasis added):

Although there were general characteristics of similarity, as an expert [Delaney] could not find any specific points of identification.  He concluded that the prints in question could have been made by defendant's shoes but he could not positively state that the shoes in fact did make the print.

This is a gross error.  Delaney positively testified that Zeigler's shoe could not have made the key footprint, strongly indicating the possibility of an unknown assailant.  It was MacDonell, not Delaney, who refused to specify whether Zeigler's shoe had made the print.  Given this misapprehension of a basic issue, it's not hard to understand how the chief justice could have found that there was "very little contradiction" between Delaney's testimony and MacDonell's.

The opinion also seemed to ignore the fact that the undercover policeman in the Mincey case was also on the scene by invitation, yet the U.S. Supreme Court found the search unreasonable.

The Florida opinion concluded: "In some instances defendant has been able to show some inconsistencies in the evidence.  However, when one considers the magnitude of this case, all facts could not be expected to mesh perfectly."