During World War I, Fletcher belonged to the 10th Field Artillery, 3rd Division of the American Expeditionary Force, which fought in France. His highest rank was First Lieutenant. After discharge, he returned to Lawton and joined the Lowery Post of the American Legion.
Judicial career
Riley was first elected to the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1924, and was successively re-elected in 1930, 1936, and 1942. In 1933, Riley made a speech in favor of President Roosevelt's National Recovery Act, stating that Oklahoma "stood alone in this field, i.e., the conservation of natural resources, and served as a laboratory to try social and economic experiments without risk to the nation", which were then copied by other states and the federal government. One source has claimed that Riley was a successful candidate of the Ku Klux Klan, and in a 1947 case supported segregation as "... a member of the court that denied Ada Lois admission to the University of Oklahoma School of Law". Riley attempted to run for reelection in 1948, while simultaneously running for a seat in the United States Senate, but the state Democratic Party would not allow this dual candidacy, and instead nominated Hobart, Oklahoma lawyer J.H. Hughes to the court seat. Riley lost his Senate bid, and the Democrats lost his seat on the court to Republican Cecil Talmage O'Neal.
Role in Curtailing Oral Argument in Appellate Court
In 1998, two professors at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, Joseph T. Thai and Andrew M. Coats, published their research into the decline of oral argument in state appellate courts, compared to its use in earlier times. They found that the move towards total reliance on written documents might be producing adverse effects on the quality of decisions and on public confidence in the outcomes. Thai and Coats write that by the end of the 1920s, the Oklahoma Supreme Court faced a near-overwhelming backlog of untried cases. They quote former Chief Justice Fletcher Riley as blaming this on the increasing number of property claims arising out of the discovery of oil. They describe him as being the instigator of a move by the court to save time during each trial by restricting or even eliminating oral argument among the judges. Until 1933, a Supreme Court rule established oral argument as a matter of right. Fletcher disagreed with the sanctity and value of oral argument in the judicial arena, and wrote a number of legal books and papers that are cited by Thai and Coats. He believed that the positive arguments for oral argument were a waste of time and contributed almost nothing to the outcome. Instead the judges should read written briefs by the opposing attorneys, then vote their opinions straightaway, thus saving the hour that was customarily reserved for oral argument. Riley was evidently persuasive, because in 1933, the court changed its own rule to state that, “...o oral argument will be granted as a matter of right." In 1977, the rule for was strengthened and made the exceptions granting of exceptions even more difficult. Thai and Coats are proud supporters of the belief that oral argument increases openness of the judicial process. They cite noted jurists from John Marshall to the late Justice Rehnquist to support their arguments.Their article seems not to blame Justice Riley, but does cast an implied criticism at more recent Oklahoma Chief Justices for failing to relax these restrictions once the immediate crisis had abated. They even note that the U.S. Supreme Court has continued its old policy of allowing open debate in almost every case it hears.
