The last witness was Wolfgang Walitzki, a friend of Riechmann and Kischnick's. He met the couple around 1978, and would go on day trips with them and attend dinners at their home. While he had no direct knowledge of what Riechmann did for a living, Walitzki spoke vaguely of a business deal Riechmann had apparently entered into with an "Arabian fellow." Once the couple moved to southern Germany, his contact with them was limited, and he could recall only one specific instance in which he had seen them in the two years preceding Kischnick's murder.7What's more, the jury still would have been presented with evidence of the reciprocal wills and insurance policies on Kischnick's life from which Riechmann stood to benefit. That Riechmann stood to profit greatly from Kischnick's death—to the tune of over $961,000 in U.S. dollars—was further evidence of motive that the testimony of Riechmann's German acquaintances would have done little to counteract. And, in fact, Riechmann did attempt to collect on a number of the policies following Kischnick's murder. The jury also heard from Riechmann's cell mate that Riechmann expressed happiness at the prospect of becoming a millionaire from the insurance money he would receive.In addressing the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of his Brady claim, Riechmann made little effort to address the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that his Brady claim was procedurally barred. Instead, Riechmann offered a brief argument concerning the materiality of the evidence, maintaining that the statements from the German witnesses would have undermined the state's evidence of motive during the guilt phase. The only reference Riechmann made to the Florida Supreme Court's procedural ruling was to assert, in a footnote, that "[t]o the extent that the [Florida Supreme C]ourt determined that issue is procedurally barred as it should have been raised on direct appeal, then counsel was ineffective."
Additionally, in 1980, while Kischnick and Riechmann were separated, Kischnick took out two whole-life policies on herself, which she purchased from Ernst Steffen and which were valued at 29,227 and 29,437 German marks, respectively, at the time of Kischnick's death. Both policies provided for double indemnity in the event of Kischnick's accidental death (which, again, included murder, assuming the murderer was not the beneficiary). Kischnick's parents were the original beneficiaries on both policies, but in 1983, the insurance company received Change of Beneficiary forms designating Riechmann as the new beneficiary on both policies.The state also submitted copies of Riechmann and Kischnick's reciprocal wills, in which each was named as the other's sole heir. Evidence showed that the wills were filed in a German court in June of 1987. Riechmann claimed, during his testimony, that it was Kischnick who wanted to file the reciprocal wills. Riechmann agreed, as he wanted to ensure that Kischnick, not his family, would inherit his estate.
Noteworthy Court Decisions Name Nationality State Date Status Consular Intervention Jesus Rodriguez Jimenez Mexico Arizona Arizona Supreme Court, 08/07/1990 Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 35 years, for state's failure to establish 'especially cruel On balance then, we are convinced that whatever marginal benefit would have accrued to Riechmann as a result of the 3.850 testimony did not create a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068.Approximately three months after starting to work with Mohler, Kischnick departed for the United States with Riechmann. Not once during those three months with Mohler was Kischnick able to make a full rental payment, and she confided in Mohler that she was earning far less than she had previously.
Mr. Riechmann was condemned for the fatal shooting of his companion, Kersten Kischnick, when the two German tourists were visiting South Florida in October 1987. A jury voted 9-3 to recommend a death sentence and he was condemned United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1163 (11th Cir. 2002)). That last component, the materiality inquiry, should focus on "whether `the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.'" Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1952, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)). "The evidence rises to the level of materiality within the meaning of Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the suppressed evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Rimmer v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 876 F.3d 1039, 1054 (11th Cir. 2017). In making this determination, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances" and "`evaluat[e]' the withheld evidence `in the context of the entire record.'" Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Turner v. United States, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1885, 1893, 198 L.Ed.2d 443 (2017)).The third witness was Kischnick's younger sister, Regina, who first met Riechmann when Kischnick brought him home in 1974. Regina did not learn of her sister's occupation until several years later. During the time that Riechmann and Kischnick lived in Hamburg, Regina never knew Riechmann to work at any particular job, though she recalled Kischnick telling her that Riechmann "had business dealings with Arabs"—specifically, "dealings in gold." Kischnick seemed content, if not happy, in her life with Riechmann in Hamburg, but she became noticeably unhappy upon their move to southern Germany. On the occasions that Regina visited her sister in southern Germany, it did not appear to her that Riechmann was working. Regina learned that Kischnick had gotten married to someone other than Riechmann and obtained a Swiss passport. There were several times when Regina would call the apartment in southern Germany and Riechmann would answer and tell her that Kischnick "was in Switzerland with a girlfriend." Regina often heard Riechmann make derogatory comments about Kischnick's age and figure.
Assuming the statements would have been admissible under Florida law, the Florida Supreme Court's conclusion that the statements would likely not have affected the outcome at trial is not unreasonable. Like the would-be testimony we discussed above in evaluating Riechmann's ineffective assistance claim, the undisclosed statements would have undermined mainly the state's evidence of motive, and only to a limited degree.When the prosecutor refused to comply, Riechmann's defense counsel moved the state trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of the statements and turn the relevant statements over to the defense. It does not appear that the state trial court ever ruled on that motion, and Riechmann's trial counsel did not renew it.As to deficient performance, Riechmann correctly notes that the Florida Supreme Court appears to have somewhat mischaracterized the basis for his ineffective assistance claim in its deficiency ruling. After agreeing with the state 3.850 court's prejudice analysis, the Florida Supreme Court noted that, in any case, "counsel could not be held ineffective for failing to present witnesses from a list withheld from him" by the state. Riechmann, 777 So. 2d at 357. But the relevant list for purposes of Riechmann's ineffective assistance claim was the list he provided to defense counsel of witnesses to find and interview, not the list of witnesses interviewed by German police. And, while there was considerable overlap between the two lists, Riechmann's list included several names—including Marlene Seeger, Wolfgang Walitzki, and the Karpischeks—who were not on the state's list. Additionally, it was the statements themselves, not the list of witnesses, that the state actually withheld from the defense.
. Riechmann claimed Symkowski had a reputation in the jail as an informant.Here, the Florida Supreme Court "clearly and expressly" rested its rejection of Riechmann's guilt-phase Brady claim on a state procedural bar, pursuant to which issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal are barred in state post-conviction proceedings. Riechmann, 777 So. 2d at 363 (citing Francis v. Barton, 581 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1991)). Because Riechmann could have raised his Brady claim on direct appeal—a finding he has not contested —the Florida Supreme Court determined the claim was barred. Id.Despite learning about the existence of several Swiss and German persons who might have had relevant information about the nature of Riechmann and Kischnick's relationship, defense counsel spoke to no German witnesses prior to trial, nor did he send an investigator to Germany. Riechmann also provided his defense counsel with a handwritten list of persons in Germany to depose or contact, but defense counsel did not contact anyone on the list.
"Federal habeas courts generally defer to the factual findings of state courts, presuming the facts to be correct unless they are rebutted by clear and convincing evidence." Cooper v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 646 F.3d 1328, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jones v. Walker, 540 F.3d 1277, 1288 n.5 (11th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). However, "[w]hen a state court's adjudication of a habeas claim results in a decision that is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, this Court is not bound to defer to unreasonably-found facts or to the legal conclusions that flow from them." Id. at 1353 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Jones, 540 F.3d at 1288 n.5). In such instances, we need not afford the state court's findings deference under AEDPA, and we review the underlying habeas claim de novo. Id.Thus, to the extent that the Florida Supreme Court based its deficient-performance ruling on its finding that defense trial counsel had no way of identifying any or all of the witnesses on the state's list who were then identified in Riechmann's 3.850 motion for relief, that ruling was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, and it is not entitled to deferential review under AEDPA. See Cooper, 646 F.3d at 1352-53.Doris Dessauer and Doris Rindelaub, Riechmann's former girlfriends, admitted they had never met Kischnick, and both testified they had barely heard from or seen Riechmann in many years. As to Walitzki, while he at least testified to a friendship with Riechmann and Kischnick, even he acknowledged that he had lost contact with them once they relocated to southern Germany in the years immediately preceding Kischnick's murder.According to Riechmann, he and Kischnick traveled to Miami in 1987 as a vacation. The two had previously visited Miami for a week in 1986. While the ostensible purpose of the 1987 trip was pleasure, Riechmann was also scoping out locations for a designer clothing store he hoped to open in Miami. He and Kischnick also took trips to a shooting range during the 1987 trip. Riechmann loved to shoot and collect guns, which he was unable to do in Germany. Riechmann and Kischnick planned to stay in Miami from October 2 through 31.
Because Riechmann's argument that the Florida Supreme Court did not "strictly or regularly follow[ ]" its own procedural rule in its opinion is without merit, we conclude that the district court properly deferred to that procedural ruling, and Riechmann may maintain a claim for federal habeas relief only if he can show cause and prejudice to excuse his failure to properly exhaust his guilt-phase Brady claim. Bailey, 172 F.3d at 1302.In 1994, Riechmann filed his first motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Relevant to the instant appeal, Riechmann raised two claims: (1) trial counsel failed to adequately investigate the case, including the nature of Riechmann's relationship with Kischnick; and (2) the state withheld material exculpatory evidence, including interviews with 27 German and Swiss citizens taken by German police, in violation of Brady. Michael William Mervine , Richard L. Polin , Pam Bondi, Attorney General's Office Legal Affairs, Miami, FL, for Respondents-Appellees.
A magistrate judge prepared a report and recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that the district court deny Riechmann's § 2254 petition. In relevant part, the magistrate judge concluded Riechmann was not entitled to federal habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim because "[t]he Florida Supreme Court accurately stated that the [state 3.850] court's factual findings on the claim concerning Riechmann's relationship with Kischnick were supported by competent and substantial evidence, and the legal conclusions were supported by prior case law." As to Riechmann's Brady claim, the magistrate judge concluded that the claim was procedurally barred, and Riechmann failed to show cause and prejudice sufficient to overcome that bar. The magistrate judge further noted that Riechmann's § 2254 petition failed to provide any substantive analysis as to the Brady claim; in particular, he failed even to allege that the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law in rejecting his Brady claim.Riechmann continues to insist that this procedural rule is not "strictly or regularly followed." Riechmann's primary, if not only, basis for this assertion is that the Florida Supreme Court did not apply the rule consistently within his case. Riechmann argues that, had the Florida Supreme Court been consistent, it would similarly have rejected his penalty-phase Brady claim on the same procedural ground, which it did not. We find this argument lacks merit, as it is based on a fundamental misreading of the Florida Supreme Court's opinion. In discussing the statements in question, the Florida Supreme Court correctly noted that "the [state 3.850] court found that these statements would have been material to Riechmann in the sentencing phase because they would have allowed counsel the opportunity to present some mitigating evidence." Riechmann, 777 So. 2d at 363. It went on to say it agreed with that determination and that the statements would be made available to Riechmann "for the new penalty phase." Id.Before delving into the analysis of Riechmann's Brady claim, we more clearly identify the alleged Brady material under consideration here. It is somewhat unclear from the state court record and the parties' briefs on appeal whether Riechmann's Brady claim is based on the state's failure to disclose the existence of all the witnesses identified and interviewed by German police in addition to the actual statements those witnesses gave. To the extent Riechmann claims the list of witnesses' names is itself Brady material, he cannot reasonably claim that he could not locate those witnesses on his own. See Stein, 846 F.3d at 1146 (finding no Brady violation where the defendant can "locate [the evidence] with reasonable diligence").The final witness was a woman named Dina Mohler, who then worked as a prostitute in Switzerland. Mohler first met Kischnick a few years after Kischnick and Riechmann moved to southern Germany. Kischnick had replied to an advertisement Mohler placed in the newspaper seeking a "colleague" with whom to share her apartment. By "colleague," Mohler meant another prostitute who would pay rent to use the shared space. Kischnick, who worked under the name Yvonne, was supposed to pay Mohler 1,000 Swiss francs per month to use the apartment, but Kischnick was unable to make this payment because she was physically ill and depressed. Specifically, Kischnick was unable to provide services to her customers for large stretches of time because she was suffering from "gynecological problem[s]," which at times were so severe that she doubled over in pain.The Florida Supreme Court went on to note that, in any case, "counsel could not be held ineffective for failing to present witnesses from a list withheld from him." Id. In a footnote, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that it was referring to the list of Swiss and German witnesses that the state withheld which formed the basis of Riechmann's Brady claim. Id. at 357 n.16.
The first of these witnesses was Peter Carsten Meyer-Reinach, who met Riechmann and Kischnick in Hamburg in 1977. During the time of his acquaintance with the couple, Meyer-Reinach knew Kischnick to be a prostitute and Riechmann to be her pimp. During that time, Kischnick earned between 1,000 and 1,500 German marks per day as a prostitute.1Riechmann contends his trial counsel's performance at the guilt-phase of trial was constitutionally ineffective under the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Riechmann argues trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation when he did not interview several German witnesses on a list that Riechmann provided to him prior to trial. "An ineffective assistance claim has two components: A petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense." Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Der Fall stinkt doch zum Himmel! Dieter Riechmann ist 1200 Prozentig unschuldig! Wenn man nur ein bisschen Menschenkenntnis hat, und Dieter beim reden ansieht, sieht man die Wahrheit. Eine Verurteilung auf Verdacht und Glauben. Eine unfassbare Amerikanische Justiz!!! Dieter Riechmann muß frei gesprochen werden und Entschädigung erhalten At the sentencing hearing, after hearing argument from both sides, the state trial court issued a verbal ruling on the record. In announcing its ruling, the state trial court noted that it had "reviewed certain papers ... that were delivered to me by the State, the reports from Germany." The state trial court noted that the reports concerned "people over in Germany that knew [Riechmann], knew of him." Defense counsel interrupted, informing the state trial court that he had not seen those documents and "never got any announcement from the Court as to what the Court's ruling on that matter was," apparently referring to his pretrial motion to have the state trial court review in camera the 27 missing statements from German police. In response, the state trial court remarked that "most of the people did not know him well and if they knew him well it was years ago." The state trial court then announced its ruling, agreeing with the jury and imposing a sentence of death.
Doku - Ein fast perfektes Verbrechen: Der ewige Wettlauf zwischen Gut und Böse - Duration: 43:11. doku247 308,541 view 70-80% AUF ALLES!: == Dokus/Dokumentationen Online kostenlos schauen.Dokus über Kindervergewaltigungen, Prongrafie, Drogen, Sex, Alkohol & Co. Pädophile Dokus in. Doku auf deutsch 2015. Free TV. In addressing the Brady claim, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the state 3.850 court's finding that the witness statements withheld by the state "would have been material to Riechmann in the sentencing phase" and noted that "these statements will be made available to Riechmann" for "the new penalty phase." Id. at 363. Notably, however, the Florida Supreme Court did not indicate that its decision to affirm the state 3.850 court and order resentencing was based on the Brady violation, nor did it express disagreement with the state 3.850 court's finding that the penalty-phase Brady claim was barred because Riechmann failed to raise it on direct appeal. Id. Instead, the Florida Supreme Court explicitly stated it was affirming the state 3.850 court's order "in its entirety," before specifically agreeing with the state 3.850 court's analysis concerning the ex parte communication and counsel's deficient performance during the penalty phase. Id. at 347, 348-53.
Dieter Riechmann war in einem großen Drogen Deal verwickelt! Das hatte er im Prozeß verheimlicht! Die Drogen Dealer wollten das Geld rauben, dabei wurde die Freundin erschoßen! Im Prozeß wurde viel gelogen!These are, generally speaking, the sentiments Riechmann claims the absent witnesses he identifies would have communicated to the jury about the nature of Riechmann and Kischnick's relationship had trial counsel bothered to find and call them. We acknowledge that Mohler made various concessions during her testimony —including that Riechmann did not love Kischnick "in the same way she loved him"—that undermined some of her more positive testimony. But it remains the case that the jury was presented with testimony expressing the basic sentiments that Riechmann claims would have come from the absent witnesses he identifies.. The record shows that, at the 3.850 hearing, the state challenged the admission of the affidavits as containing hearsay without any showing of reliability. Riechmann's attorney responded that the statements would be "proffered as mitigation evidence" and that there were "relaxed hearsay and relaxed evidentiary standards for purposes of mitigation." The parties specifically discussed the admissibility of the affidavits under the standard in Fla. Stat. § 921.141, which concerns sentencing proceedings for capital felonies and allows a state court to admit evidence probative of the character of the defendant regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence. After hearing the parties' arguments, the state 3.850 court admitted the affidavits into evidence as relevant to whether counsel was ineffective by not investigating these potential statements prior to sentencing. The state 3.850 court noted that it was not necessary for it to conclude, at that point, whether the affidavits would necessarily have been admissible in a hypothetical sentencing proceeding.For example, the four witnesses explicitly referenced in Riechmann's brief and in his underlying state post-conviction motion— Doris Dessauer (or Röhn), Monika Seeger, Doris Rindelaub, and Dr. Horst Neumann—all were on the handwritten list of people in Germany to contact that Riechmann gave his defense counsel prior to trial. Moreover, testimony at the evidentiary hearing indicates that defense counsel was in possession of the list itself pretrial, and was merely seeking the disclosure of the statements and reports from German police that the state had in its possession. Accordingly, we limit our analysis here to the materiality of the statements themselves, along with the other documentary evidence referenced in Riechmann's Rule 3.850 motion and presented to the state 3.850 court at the evidentiary hearing.Both the state 3.850 court and the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that the state likely violated Brady at the penalty phase by withholding the statements, but neither was willing to grant relief on that basis due to the procedural bar. This did not somehow relieve the state of its obligation to comply with Brady during the new penalty trial, regardless of whether the new sentencing proceeding was based on its prior failure to do so. There is no inconsistency to be found in a court acknowledging that an otherwise procedurally barred claim is or may be meritorious.
The state also presented testimony from a serologist concerning the blood found in the car and on Riechmann's clothing. The serologist testified that the "high-velocity blood splatter" found on the driver-side door inside the car could not have gotten there if the driver's seat was occupied in a normal driving position when the shot was fired from outside the passenger-side window. Moreover, upon examining Riechmann's clothing, the serologist discovered blood stains, as opposed to high-velocity splatter. Had Riechmann been sitting in the driver's seat during the shooting, his clothes would have shown evidence of blood splatter, rather than blood stains, the serologist stated.Specifically, Riechmann had taken out two life insurance policies on Kischnick, each of which insured her life for 200,000 German marks, and one of which provided for double payment in the event of accidental death, which included murder, so long as the murderer was not the beneficiary. Riechmann was the beneficiary of both policies. Riechmann purchased the double-indemnity policy from Ernst Steffen in 1984. Steffen had previously sold Riechmann an accident insurance policy, but Riechmann wanted to cancel that policy and replace it with two risk life insurance policies, one on himself and the other on Kischnick. The risk policy on Kischnick (which was for twice as much as the policy on Riechmann) insured her only from 1984 to 1994, and Riechmann was only able to collect on the policy in the event that Kischnick died within that time frame.
Der Fall stinkt doch zum Himmel! Dieter Riechmann ist 1200 Prozentig unschuldig! Wenn man nur ein bisschen Menschenkenntnis hat, und Dieter beim reden ansieht, sieht man die Wahrheit. Eine Verurteilung auf Verdacht und Glauben. Eine unfassbare Amerikanische Justiz!!! Dieter Riechmann muß frei gesprochen werden und Entschädigung erhalten.In March 2013, Riechmann filed a counseled § 2254 petition, raising several claims, including the guilt-phase claims of ineffective assistance and Brady violations detailed above. As to the ineffective assistance claim, Riechmann challenged the Florida Supreme Court's factual finding that the information trial counsel could have gathered from further investigation would have been cumulative.Moreover, even as to the state's theory of motive, the 3.850 testimony that would have been elicited from the witnesses Riechmann identifies was weak and would not have effectively undermined the state's motive theory. Of the seven witnesses whose testimony Riechmann presented at the evidentiary hearing before the state 3.850 court, only Wolfgang Walitzki appears to have spent any significant time with Riechmann and Kischnick as a couple. Both Marlene and Monika Seeger confessed that they never had an actual conversation with Kischnick beyond exchanging pleasantries, and their interactions with Riechmann were largely confined to the times when he would come to pay his rent. Their respective impressions of Riechmann and Kischnick's relationship were formed through observing the couple's rapport "from a distance."The state 3.850 court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Riechmann presented in-person testimony from seven German witnesses. These witnesses maintained they would have been willing to testify at trial had they been contacted. While several witnesses testified that Riechmann seemed to have money—because he was well dressed, paid the rent on time, or paid for dinners—none of these witnesses had personal knowledge of Riechmann's financial situation or of any actual employment. Several of the witnesses did, however, testify that Riechmann had led them to believe he worked as an insurance agent.
The state also presented several pieces of documentary evidence in support of its theory that Riechmann killed Kischnick to recover insurance proceeds. In addition to establishing that Riechmann was entitled to 500,000 German marks as a result of the insurance policy associated with the rental car, the state presented evidence of five additional insurance policies that were taken out on Kischnick's life between approximately 1978 and 1985 and of which Riechmann was the beneficiary.As discussed above, the Florida Supreme Court explicitly pointed to two pieces of trial evidence in support of its finding that the additional testimony defense counsel failed to present would be cumulative: the testimony of Dina Mohler —specifically her testimony that Riechmann and Kischnick loved one another— and the video the defense played for the jury, which showed Riechmann and Kischnick involved in a loving relationship.Riechmann also had the opportunity to explain the nature of his relationship with Kischnick and the source of his financial success to the jury when he testified in his own defense. For example, Riechmann explained that, far from forcing Kischnick to engage in prostitution, he had in fact bought her freedom from other pimps on two occasions..As to Riechmann's Brady claim, the state 3.850 court also admitted five written statements taken by German police that were withheld from the defense.8 But three of those statements came from persons who also testified in person at the evidentiary hearing, and their statements were largely repetitive of that testimony.9 The fourth statement came from Dr. Horst Neumann, a retired physician who thought Riechmann and Kischnick, as a couple, were "financially quite well-off," in part because they offered him a generous amount to take care of their dogs when they were away on trips. Riechmann told Dr. Neumann that he had won 40,000 German marks in the lottery.10
Das ist echt unfassbar. Die Staatsanwälte erpressen falsche Aussagen von Ermittlern, beispielsweise wo bestimmte Gegenstände im Auto lagen, um dann sagen zu können "ja, der muss ausgestiegen sein!". Und derjenige, der die Liste der Gegenstände angefertigt hat, bestätigt all das!!!! Wie kann es denn dann bitte sein, dass Herr Riechmann noch heute in HAFT SITZT?! Sind die alle völlig bescheuert? Wenn die Staatsanwälte nachweislich Falschaussagen erpressen, dann stellt sich die Frage nach der Schuld doch schon gar nicht mehr. Mein Glaube in die Menschheit ist erneut verloren.In the same opinion, the Florida Supreme Court also denied a separate state habeas corpus petition filed by Riechmann, in which he had raised, inter alia, the same Brady claim raised in his Rule 3.850 motion and a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Id. at 364-66, 364 nn.21-22.Even the five witnesses who testified that Riechmann appeared to have a good or loving relationship with Kischnick conceded that their contacts with Kischnick and their observations of the couple were quite limited or not recent. For example, sisters Marlene and Monika Seeger rented one of their many apartments to Riechmann from 1984 through his conviction. Kischnick moved in with him later, and Riechmann always paid the rent on time. Yet both sisters acknowledged that they never even had a conversation with Kischnick beyond exchanging pleasantries, and their interactions with Riechmann largely were limited to brief conversations when he paid the rent.Assuming the testimony Riechmann relies on would have been admissible at trial to rebut the state's theory of motive, there is no reasonable probability that admission of that testimony would have changed the outcome at trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068 (To demonstrate prejudice, a petitioner must show that there is a "reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.").
Ich habe es ganz genau verfolgt.nun ob er schuldig ist oder nicht das mag ich nicht beurteilen aber gelogen hat er und durch seine Arroganz wurde ihn das zum Verhängnis.Die USA sind eben in ihrer rechtssprechung anders.Er ist opfer und täter zu gleich.wenn er gleich die wahrheit gesagt hätte und er nicht aus Arroganz im zeugenstand weiter gelogen hätte wäre er nie so hoch verurteilt worden...in der USA kommt man schnell in den mühlen der Justiz darum und auch wegen iher Herrschaftlichen verhalten in der Welt werde ich nie diesen boden betreten..es wird zeit dass riechmann frei kommt.Wer will verantworten dass ein unschuldigerschuldig im gefängnis stirbtHowever, on redirect, Mohler stated that: (1) prostitutes often refer to their pimps as boyfriends and never admit to supporting them; (2) Kischnick stated "very often" than she wanted to stop being a prostitute; (3) Riechmann was verbally, if not physically, abusive; and (4) Kischnick would avoid answering any time Mohler asked how Riechmann supported himself.
Gerade in seiner "Arroganz und Macho Charakter", wie andere meinen, sehe ich die Wahrheit seiner Aussage!At some point, Riechmann and Kischnick moved from Hamburg to a German town near the Swiss border, in part because "the work for [Kischnick] ... wasn't good anymore." Meyer-Reinach saw Riechmann twice more following the move, and during one of these interactions, Riechmann commented that Kischnick "really didn't feel like working anymore." Dieter Riechmann, a Florida state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135, 1145-46 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d. Egal ne bestimmt nicht...wenn man sichbin solchen kreisen bewegt muss man damit rechnen das es schief geht. .die gier nach Geld und Leben hat sich noch nie ausgezahlt. Wenn er frei kommen würde was wäre dann sein leben. Ne einmal lude immer lude..300000 dollar hat alles bis jetzt gekostet und wer zahlt das. .der deutsche natürlich..er hat ja jetzt nur lebenslänglich und halte dss für ok...In any case, even assuming that we found the Florida Supreme Court's finding that the proffered evidence was cumulative to be unreasonable and reviewed Riechmann's ineffective assistance claim de novo, we would nonetheless affirm on the ground that Riechmann failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from trial counsel's deficient performance.
Riechmann characterizes these statements as the Florida Supreme Court granting him relief as to his penalty-phase Brady claim. Not so. The Florida Supreme Court at no point stated that its affirmance of the state 3.850 court's decision ordering resentencing was based on the Brady claim. Rather, it merely expressed agreement with the state 3.850 court's finding that the statements were Brady material that would need to be turned over during the subsequent resentencing. Id.Martin and Ulrike Karpischek, a couple who operated a high-end hair salon in Germany, also testified about their limited interactions with Kischnick. Riechmann was one of the approximately 2,500 customers at their salon. Their interactions with Kischnick primarily occurred when she came to the salon to pick up Riechmann. Kischnick had been to the salon on her own only occasionally. Neither Martin nor Ulrike had any contact with Riechmann or Kischnick outside the salon. Despite this limited contact, Ulrike claimed that Kischnick "had no desire to quit being a prostitute."Es wäre egal gewesen weil man bekommt mit so viel Drogen auch die Todesstrafe deswegen hat er es nicht am amfang gesagt man sollte sich mal die us Gesetze anschaunen bevor man urteiltThe Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") provides that, after a state court has adjudicated a claim on the merits, a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court's decision was (1) "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established [f]ederal law, as determined by the Supreme Court," or (2) "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the [s]tate court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2).
Several of the seven witnesses also testified that Riechmann had represented to them that he was an insurance salesman. The ostensible benefit of such testimony at trial would have been to indicate to the jury that Riechmann had an independent source of income and therefore did not need the income from Kischnick's prostitution. But Riechmann himself at least partially contradicted this testimony in his own trial testimony, during which he claimed he was able to support himself largely through commodities trading and admitted to lying, in a loan application, about working for an insurance company.In his trial testimony, Riechmann provided a more detailed account of his version of events. On the evening of October 25, he and Kischnick had dinner and drinks at Bayside in Miami. They left the restaurant at 10:00 p.m., intending to stop at the "Welcome to Miami Beach" sign to take pictures, but they got lost. At that point, the couple stopped at an unspecified location to ask for directions from a stranger. Realizing they were close to their destination, Riechmann unbuckled his seatbelt and reached behind his seat to retrieve his video camera, apparently preparing to use it. He placed the camera on Kischnick's lap while she searched her purse for a few dollars to tip the stranger. Riechmann then noticed the stranger had approached the car again and "was holding something in his hand into the car." Sensing danger and feeling threatened, Riechmann instinctively "hit the gas pedal" and stretched out his arm in a "protective manner." At the same time Riechmann hit the accelerator, he heard an explosion and saw Kischnick slump over in her seat. Riechmann then drove around looking for help, eventually spotting a police car and flagging it down.
While incarcerated pending trial, Riechmann spent two months as a cellmate to Walter Symkowski. The two would play chess and discuss their lives. During the course of these conversations, Riechmann repeated to Symkowski the same version of events he told police and recounted at trial: that he and Kischnick had gotten lost and asked a black man for directions, who then shot Kischnick through the open window of the car. Steffen confirmed Riechmann and Kischnick maintained a "high standard of living" while in Hamburg, and he believed Kischnick was making about 1,000 German marks per day as a prostitute. As for Riechmann, Steffen recalled helping him obtain a luxury apartment by verifying a certificate of earnings showing Riechmann made 3,950 German marks per month, though the certificate of earnings did not state the origin of those earnings. Riechmann also told Steffen that he had received training as an insurance agent. Like Meyer-Reinach, Steffen was aware that Riechmann and Kischnick had at some point moved to southern Germany near the Swiss border, in part because "[b]usiness apparently wasn't going too well in Hamburg."
During his testimony, Riechmann reiterated his love for Kischnick and recounted numerous times he had saved her life. The defense also played for the jury a video that Riechmann had taken the night that Kischnick was killed, which depicted the two as being in an apparently loving relationship.Riechmann's defense counsel did have the statements of ten of those 37 witnesses— the statements of those who might testify at trial—and he requested copies of the 27 remaining statements. The state failed to provide the defense with these 27 other statements despite the state trial court's on-the-record ruling that Riechmann was to get "carte blanche discovery.... No ifs, ands, or buts. No conditions. Whatever the state has he gets."Additionally, our exhaustive review of the record reveals that other state witnesses offered testimony—on both direct and cross-examination—that similarly undermined the state's theory of motive, particularly as it concerned Riechmann's financial situation.14 For example, at trial, Steffen testified that he helped Riechmann rent a luxury apartment by verifying a certificate of earnings showing Riechmann's monthly income. Steffen also stated, like several of the witnesses who testified at the 3.850 evidentiary hearing, that Riechmann claimed to have been trained as an insurance agent.As to the guilt-phase Brady claim, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the claim was "procedurally barred because [Riechmann] could and should have raised it on direct appeal, since by trial's end he was aware of the statements." Id. at 363. In any case, the Florida Supreme Court also explicitly agreed with the state 3.850 court's finding "that even if disclosed, there was no reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred" in the guilt phase. Id.
Human Rights Research provides information on consular rights issues in death penalty cases, along with international legal consulting and research services to attorneys, consulates and non-governmental organizations.Two of the witnesses whose statements were not disclosed—Doris Dessauer and Doris Rindelaub—were former girlfriends of Riechmann who had never even met Kischnick and had no idea what went on in their relationship. Indeed, neither woman had been in contact with Riechmann since their respective relationships with him ended, many years prior to the murder. Riechmann's landlady, Monika Seeger, had very little contact with Kischnick and acknowledged that she and her family did not have a close relationship with the couple. So setze ich ein Zeichen als Willkommensgruss im Leben für einen Unbekannten, der 22 Jahre in der Todeszelle ausharrte.Der Hamburger Dieter Riechmann und seine Freundin Kerstin Kischnick.
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.After considering Riechmann's objections and conducting a de novo review of the record, the district court affirmed and adopted the R&R, and denied Riechmann's § 2254 petition. Riechmann appealed, and this Court granted a COA as to whether the district court had properly denied § 2254 habeas relief on Riechmann's ineffective assistance and Brady claims.
On cross-examination, Mohler admitted that she had never spent any time with Riechmann and Kischnick together, and that she had only spoken to him once briefly on the phone. She acknowledged that Kischnick had always referred to Riechmann as her boyfriend, not her pimp, and consistently denied that she supported him financially, as he "had enough money of his own." Despite the fact that the couple had a "very difficult relationship" and "had a lot of fights," Mohler acknowledged that the two "loved each other." When asked specifically whether Riechmann loved Kischnick, Mohler agreed he did, though "not in the same way she loved him." Mohler never saw Riechmann physically abuse Kischnick, nor had she seen any evidence that Kischnick was abused. Just prior to departing for the United States, Kischnick appeared to be in good health and was looking forward to the trip.Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court expressly stated that it "affirm[ed] the [state 3.850] court's order in its entirety" before specifically discussing the state 3.850 court's two actual bases for ordering resentencing—ineffective assistance and improper ex parte communications between the sentencing judge and the prosecutors. Id. at 347-53 (emphasis added). While the Florida Supreme Court did not explicitly agree with the state 3.850 court's ruling that the penalty-phase Brady claim was procedurally barred, it did note that the state 3.850 court had "denied the remainder of Riechmann's claims," and expressed no disagreement with any part of that decision. Id. at 348.At trial, the state presented testimony from three expert witnesses: a gunshot-residue expert, a firearms expert, and a serologist. The defense also called its own gunshot-residue expert to counter the state's expert.
Dieter Riechmann, a Florida state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. This Court granted a certificate of appealability ("COA") on two issues: (1) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present available evidence that Riechmann's relationship with the victim was loving and respectful and that he did not "live off" her; and (2) whether the state's failure to disclose to the defense the statements of Swiss and German witnesses interviewed by German police violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. Supreme Court of Florida _____ No. SC03-760 _____ DIETER RIECHMANN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 12, 2007] REVISED OPINION PER CURIAM. This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal.
Riechmann claims that the Florida Supreme Court implicitly ruled on the penalty-phase Brady claim when it ordered that the previously withheld statements be made available at his resentencing. According to Riechmann, had the Florida Supreme Court applied the procedural bar to his penalty-phase claim, it would not have had any reason to comment on the materiality of the statements. "Rather, it would have rejected the claim entirely, and... Riechmann would have had to proceed at his penalty retrial without the statements." This is incorrect. Upon arriving in Miami from Germany in October of 1987, Riechmann rented an automobile with his Diner's Club card, which automatically insured both passengers in the event of accidental death.2 In the event of an accidental death in the vehicle—which included homicide—the deceased's legal heir would receive 500,000 German marks.3 On the evening of October 25, 1987, following a dinner out, Riechmann drove around the Miami area with Kischnick in the passenger seat of the rental car. At some point that evening, Kischnick was shot.At the outset, we must determine whether the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of Riechmann's ineffective assistance claim is entitled to deferential review under AEDPA. Riechmann contends that we should review his ineffective assistance claim de novo because the Florida Supreme Court's conclusions regarding both deficiency and prejudice were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.However, the Florida Supreme Court did not solely, or even primarily, rest its rejection of Riechmann's ineffective assistance claim on its finding that counsel did not perform deficiently. Rather, its primary basis for rejecting that claim was Riechmann's failure to show that he was prejudiced by defense counsel's allegedly deficient performance. Riechmann insists this conclusion similarly is not entitled to deferential review because the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably determined that the testimony defense counsel could have elicited from the absent witnesses would have been cumulative.
As to Riechmann's guilt-phase ineffective assistance claim, the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the state 3.850 court's finding that Riechmann failed to demonstrate prejudice because the claim "concerned evidence which was already admitted at trial, only in a different manner than now asserted." Id. at 357 ("[W]e find that the trial judge's factual findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence, and his legal conclusions are supported by our prior case law."). In particular, the Florida Supreme Court pointed to "testimony from a State's witness of Riechmann's love for Kischnick" and "a videotape of the couple the night of the murder that showed them involved in a loving relationship." Id.As for Kischnick's occupation, Riechmann maintained she first got into prostitution as a means of supporting herself while he was serving a ten-month jail sentence for perjury. Riechmann claimed Kischnick ended up in the clutches of "a gang of pimps," and he subsequently "bought her free" by paying the gang six months' worth of her earnings. Kischnick later became involved with another gang of pimps when the couple was briefly separated for six months, and Riechmann again purchased her freedom for 50,000 German marks.However, Riechmann also told Symkowski that his girlfriend was a "[h]igh class prostitut[e]" and that he had paid a Swiss man to marry her so she could obtain a Swiss passport. Riechmann said that he never had to work because his "[g]irlfriends support him." Riechmann also expressed happiness at the prospect of becoming a millionaire from the insurance money he would receive as a result of Kischnick's death.
When questioned by police—both at the scene on the evening of October 25 and during subsequent conversations—Riechmann consistently claimed Kischnick had been shot by a random stranger. Specifically, Riechmann told officers that he stopped to ask for directions from a black man who asked if they were tourists. Riechmann noticed that the man had something in his hand. Then Riechmann heard an explosion. At that point, Riechmann "hit the accelerator and took off." Riechmann heard Kischnick "wheezing" and realized she had been shot, at which point he rolled up the window and reclined her seat. He eventually spotted a police officer, whom he flagged down. Despite going on multiple "drive arounds" with police in the days following the murder, Riechmann was unable to identify specifically where the shooting took place.At trial, the government sought to establish the nature of Riechmann and Kischnick's relationship primarily through the testimony of four German witnesses, including Kischnick's sister. These witnesses were culled from the list of 37 German witnesses referenced above.