Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Peter Schiffman's Testimony

Text: Schiffman's testimony at the penalty retrial was, according to Soto, devastating to Anthony DiFrisco's defense. Schiffman deviated greatly from what Soto anticipated he would say. He testified that DiFrisco had been using drugs, including cocaine and heroin, since he was 14 or 15 years old and then told the jury that heavy use of cocaine usually leads to paranoia, followed by out and out psychosis. Schiffman explained the addictive qualities of cocaine by relaying an experiment in which rats chose cocaine over food until they starved to death, and said that humans addicted to cocaine would do anything to feel better when they are going through withdrawal. Schiffman said the lives of cocaine addicts revolve around getting the drug, even to the point of hurting people to get it. He then told the jury that heroin, by contrast, is a far less dangerous drug to the community than cocaine, because people only do bad things on it when they're trying to get it. According to defense counsel, Schiffman's testimony left the jury with the impression that DiFrisco, as a user of both cocaine and heroin, was a danger to the community. At the conclusion of the evidence, DiFrisco made a brief statement to the jury, asking the jurors to spare his life: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am deeply, deeply sorry for taking the life of Mr. Potcher. I'm equally sorry for his family as well as mine. I ask you and I plead with you to spare my life, not give me the death penalty. Thank you. Thank you all. Also at the conclusion of the evidence, but out of the jury's presence, the court told counsel that it was considering striking remorse as a mitigating factor because defense counsel had presented no evidence of it. The only suggestion of remorse, the court observed, was in DiFrisco's allocution, which was not evidence. Defense counsel objected, informing the court that remorse was one of the central themes of their mitigation case. Implicitly acknowledging that they had presented no evidence of remorse, however, defense counsel argued that the present remorse mitigating factor should not be struck, because present remorse could be inferred from past expressions of remorse. The court allowed the remorse mitigating factor to remain, ruling that although it may be a stretch, the jury may infer the continuing presence of remorse from the [confession] and prior testimony, if they so wish.