The Commission on Capital Cases updates thisinformation regularly.  This information, however, is subject to changeand may not reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not berelied upon for statistical or legal purposes.

RIECHMANN, Dieter (W/M)

DC# 113993

DOB: 05/17/44

­­­­Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case #87-42355

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Harold Solomon

Attorney, Trial: Edward Carhart – Private

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Lee Weissenborn – Special PublicDefender

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Linda McDermott – Private

Attorney, Resentencing: Richard Klugh – Private

Date of Offense: 10/25/87

Date of Sentence: 11/04/88

Circumstances of Offense:

On 11/04/88, Kersten Kischnick was shot to death in MiamiBeach while she sat in the passenger seat of Riechmann’s rental car. Riechmann claimed that a stranger shot Kischnick when they stopped to ask directionsin Miami Beach.  He said that, after the shooting, he drove around Miamiin a panic trying to find help.  Riechmann, however, was not able toprovide details about the shooting.

Riechmann and Kischnick had been together for 13 years andhad come from Germany to visit Florida.  The prosecutors believed thatRiechmann killed her for financial gain.  They theorized that Riechmannwas Kischnick’s pimp, and he killed Kischnick when she wanted to stop workingas a prostitute.  Furthermore, Riechmann had taken out more than $961,000in German life insurance policies on Kischnick between 1978 and 1985. These policies included homicide as accidental death; therefore, Riechmannwould be able to collect on Kischnick’s death, even if she was murdered. Riechmann and Kischnick also filed reciprocal wills naming each other as thesole heir of each other’s estates in June of 1987.  Finally, Riechmannused his Diner’s Club Card to rent the car, which also insured the passengers.

The police searched Riechmann’s motel room and found threefirearms and ammunition.  An expert firearm examiner determined that thebullet used to kill Kischnick was the same kind as the ones found inRiechmann’s room and that two of the three firearms could have been used to shootKischnick.  An expert for the prosecution determined that Riechmann hadfired a gun based upon the police swab of his hand to test for gunpowderresidue at the scene.  A defense expert, however, argued that this onlyproved that Riechmann was in the vicinity of the gun as it was fired.  Aserologist, provided by the State, testified that the blood found within thedriver’s side of the car could not have splattered where it did if someone hadbeen sitting in the driver’s seat.  Furthermore, Riechmann should have hadblood splatters on his clothing rather than the blood stains according to thestate’s serologist expert witness.

Trial Summary:

01/27/88         Riechmann was indicted on the following:

                                   Count I:          First-DegreeMurder (Kersten Kischnick)

                                   Count II:         Felony committed witha Firearm

08/12/88         Riechmann was found guilty on all counts charged in the indictment.

08/30/88         Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, voted for thedeath penalty.

11/04/88         Riechmann was sentenced as follows:

                                   Count I:          First-DegreeMurder (Kersten Kischnick) – Death

                                   Count II:         Felony committed witha Firearm – Suspended entry of sentence

02/24/00          The Florida Supreme Court remanded thecase back to the Circuit Court for a new sentencing hearing.

03/19/10          Riechmann’s sentence was reduced to life.

Appeals Summary:

Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal

FSC# 73,492

581 So. 2d 133

12/30/88         Appeal filed

05/30/91         FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence

08/28/91         Rehearing denied

09/27/91         Mandate issued

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC# 91-8075

506 U.S. 952

12/12/91         Petition filed

11/06/92         USSC denied the petition

Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion

CC# 87-42355

09/30/94         Motion filed

05/13/96         Evidentiary hearing held

06/11/96         Evidentiary hearing held

07/17/96         Evidentiary hearing held

11/05/96         CC granted a new sentencing hearing

Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC# 89,564

777 So. 2d 342

12/23/96         The State filed a 3.850 Appeal

12/23/96         Riechmann filed a 3.850 Appeal

02/24/00         FSC remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing

01/31/01         Rehearing denied

03/05/01         Mandate issued

Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus

FSC# 93,236

777 So. 2d 342

06/15/98         Petition filed

02/24/00         FSC denied the petition

01/31/01         Rehearing denied

03/05/01         Mandate issued

Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion 

CC# 87-42355

11/30/99         Motion filed

02/28/03         Motion denied

Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC# 03-760

966 So.2d 298 (2007)

04/28/03         Appeal filed

04/12/07         FSC affirmed denial of the motion

04/30/07         Motion for Rehearing filed

09/30/07         Motion for Rehearing denied

12/17/07         Mandate entered

Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus

FSC# 06-117

940 So. 2d 1125

01/24/06         Petition filed

09/21/06         Petition denied

United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ ofCertiorari

USSC#07-11617

02/27/08          Petition filed

10/16/08          Petition denied

Factors Contributing to the Delay in Execution ofSentence:

Factors contributing to the delay in execution of sentenceincluded that the Direct Appeal was pending for three years prior to a decisionbeing rendered.  The 3.850 Appeal also was pending for three year beforethe Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a newsentencing hearing.  After resentencing, the 3.850 Appeal was pending from04/28/03 – 04/12/07.

Case Information:

On 12/30/88, Riechmann filed a Direct Appeal in the FloridaSupreme Court.  Riechmann addressed several issues.  The first issueaddressed was that the court should not have admitted Riechmann’s previousstatements because he was not told of his 5th Amendment rights and because thepolice coerced the statements.  The next issue presented was that the handswab should not have been permitted because it was coerced and the searchwarrant was not valid.  Another issue addressed by Riechmann’s appeal wasthat the evidence collected in Germany should not have been permitted. Riechmann finally argued that his four prior convictions in Germany should nothave been admitted into evidence.  The four convictions includesolicitation of perjury, involuntary manslaughter, grand theft of an automobile,and forgery.  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction andsentence on 05/30/91.  A Mandate was issued on 09/27/91.

Riechmann filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court on 12/12/91.  The Petition for Writ ofCertiorari was denied on 11/06/92.

Riechmann filed a 3.850 Motion on 09/30/94 in the Miami-DadeCircuit Court.  On 05/13/96, 6/11/96, 7/17/96, the Circuit Court heldevidentiary hearings on the issues.  The circuit court found merit withRiechmann’s claim of ineffective counsel at the penalty phase and that theprosecutor wrote the sentencing order instead of the judge.  The CircuitCourt granted a new sentencing hearing on 11/05/96. However, the courtdismissed the rest of the claims presented by Riechmann, which included issuesof ineffective counsel during other portions of the trial and newly discoveredevidence.

On 12/23/96, the State of Florida filed a 3.850 Appealbecause the Circuit Court vacated Riechmann’s death sentence and granted a newsentencing hearing.  Riechmann also filed a 3.850 Appeal on 12/23/96because the circuit court denied most of his claims.  The Florida SupremeCourt remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing on02/24/00, which will be held after a decision is rendered regarding the 3.850Motion filed by Riechmann on 11/30/99.  A Mandate was issued on 03/05/01.

Riechmann filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on06/15/98.  He addressed several issues in the appeal.  The first issueaddressed was that post-conviction and appellate counsel was ineffective. Another issue presented questioned the appropriateness of the trial court’srulings.  Riechmann also argued that there was a violation of his equalprotection by the court.  The Florida Supreme Court denied the Petitionfor Writ of Habeas Corpus on 02/24/00.  A Mandate was issued on 03/05/01.

Riechmann filed a 3.850 Motion in the Miami-Dade CircuitCourt on 11/30/99.  The motion was denied on 02/28/03.

Riechmann filed a 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Courton 04/28/03, and on 04/12/07, the FSC affirmed the denial of themotion.   He then filed a Motion for Rehearing on 04/30/07 which wasdenied 09/30/07.  The mandate was issued in this case on 12/17/07.

On 01/24/06, Riechmann filed a Petition for Writ of HabeasCorpus in the Florida Supreme Court.  The petition was denied on 09/21/06.

Riechmann filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in theUnited States Supreme Court on 02/27/08. The petition was denied on 10/08/08.

Riechmann was resentenced by the Circuit Court to lifeimprisonment on 03/19/10.

Institutional Adjustment:

________________________________________________________________________

Report Date:    12/21/01          S.Q.

Approved:       01/22/02          W.S.

Updated:         03/29/10          EMJ