Dignity. Truth. Justice.
Dieter Riechmann: the Case, the Questions, the Records
On October 25, 1987, Kersten Kischnick was shot and killed in Florida. Her partner at the time, Dieter Riechmann, was convicted of murder in 1988 and has maintained ever since that he did not commit the crime.
The death sentence was later vacated because of errors found in the sentencing phase. The conviction remained in place; in 2010, a life sentence was imposed. This website provides context for the different procedural positions and the related records.
Sources: R, PDF pp. 67–75 and 299–301; S, PDF pp. 72–82.
Established Errors
Courts found errors in the original sentencing proceedings. These included prosecutorial involvement and deficiencies in the defense during the penalty phase. As a result, the death sentence was vacated — but the conviction itself remained in place.
Source: S, PDF pp. 72–82.
Evidence Questions That Remain Disputed
Riechmann makes serious allegations about how evidence and witness testimony were developed, disclosed, and presented. Not all of these issues were later reconsidered fully on the merits; in some instances, procedural issues and prior rulings prevented renewed review.
Sources: R, PDF pp. 63–112 and 296–322; S, PDF pp. 4–25.
Sources and Records
The website relies on motions, State responses, court decisions, and other record materials. The sources section organizes the most important documents and references.
The Case
The case page walks through the documented events, from the 1987 killing and the 1988 conviction to later decisions and legal proceedings.
It distinguishes the competing accounts of the events and the evidence from the courts’ decisions. The death sentence was vacated as to sentencing; the conviction remained in place.
Readers following the timeline will find source references for individual events and indications of whether statements come from Riechmann, the State, or court decisions.
Sources: R, PDF pp. 67–75 and 299–301; S, PDF pp. 5–8 and 72–82.
Questions About the Conviction
The disputed issues are not presented here as established conclusions. Instead, they are organized by source and by how the courts addressed them.
The focus is on Riechmann’s challenges to forensic findings, witness testimony, and the disclosure of records. The State’s responses and the courts’ reasoning are presented alongside them.
This page is not a substitute for a judicial evidentiary hearing and does not claim that all allegations have been proven. Its purpose is to show what was disputed and where the respective positions can be found in the record.
Sources: R, PDF pp. 63–112 and 296–322; S, PDF pp. 4–25.
Current Status
A concise summary of the documented status of the most recent appellate proceeding.
Most recent documented step: mandate issued on June 26, 2026.
On June 4, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal denied Riechmann’s motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The brief order states that the motion for rehearing, the State’s response, and Riechmann’s Reply and Amended Reply were considered; however, it provides no new detailed reasoning addressing the individual evidentiary and procedural issues.
On June 26, 2026, the Third DCA issued its mandate in the consolidated proceedings 3D2025-0018 and 3D2025-0102. This ended the regular appellate phase before the Third DCA.
Sources & Documents
The documents provide context: they show what positions were presented, how the State responded, and what the courts decided.
The website therefore distinguishes among motions, State responses, court decisions, and exhibits. A document’s inclusion in the record does not automatically establish every assertion it contains.
The source index explains the three document sets reviewed: R, A, and S. References use the physical PDF page numbers so that statements and their context can be checked.