Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Retrial

Text: The sentencing retrial lasted five days, one day of which was devoted to defendant's mitigation case. Two expert witnesses testified, Albarus and Dr. Schiffman. Also, defendant's sister, father, brother, and mother testified. Albarus testified as a mitigation specialist, stating that she performed a psychosocial assessment of defendant. She narrated his family background and history of drug abuse. Albarus also briefly discussed defendant's relationship with Franciotti. On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to discredit Albarus by bringing out the fact that she did not have an undergraduate degree in psychology, did not have any advanced degree beyond the undergraduate level, and lacked training in substance abuse. The prosecutor also highlighted the fact that Albarus had never before testified in court, and that her report was very similar to the prior report submitted by Alfonso. With regard to Dr. Schiffman's testimony at the sentencing retrial, Soto recounted that his testimony was devastating to [defendant's] defense. Soto noted that the doctor's testimony, which deviated from that which Soto had anticipated, made it look like [defendant] was a danger. For example, Dr. Schiffman told the jury that heavy cocaine use usually leads to paranoia, followed by out and out psychosis, and that a cocaine addict may even be driven to the point of hurting people trying to get [drugs]. One of Soto's supervisors testified that he would not have agreed to present Dr. Schiffman as a witness. Members of defendant's family testified. They recounted defendant's unhappy home, his father's neglect, and his drug abuse. After both sides had rested, defendant made a brief statement to the jury asking the members to spare his life. Outside the jury's presence, counsel engaged in a colloquy with the court about whether defense counsel would be permitted to allude to defendant's remorse. Counsel intended in their summation to submit defendant's remorse to the jury as a mitigating factor. The court told counsel that it was considering striking remorse as a mitigating factor because there's no evidence of it. The only suggestion of remorse, the court observed, was in defendant's statement to the jury. Defense counsel objected, stating that remorse is one of the central themes of our defense. The court ultimately ruled that although it may be a stretch, the jury may infer the continuing presence ... of remorse from the prior statements [the confession] and prior testimony, if they so wish. In closing, Soto did argue defendant's remorse by contending that defendant's confession to an otherwise unsolved murder should weigh heavily against the death penalty, as well as defendant's cooperation with the police. Finally, Soto spoke of defendant's drug use and how that affected Franciotti's influence over defendant. In its verdict, the jury found unanimously that the first aggravating factor, that the murder was for pecuniary gain, had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury did not unanimously find, and therefore rejected, the existence of the second aggravating factor, that the murder was committed for the purpose of escaping detection for another crime. As reflected on the verdict form, the jury's findings on mitigation were as follows:
(12) No (0) Yes b. The defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was significantly impaired as the result of mental disease or defect or intoxication, but not to a degree sufficient to constitute a defense to prosecution[.] (12) No (0) Yes c. The defendant rendered substantial assistance to the State in the prosecution of another person for the crime of murder[.] (6) No (6) Yes d. The childhood and upbringing of Anthony DiFrisco. (0) No (12) Yes e. Anthony DiFrisco suffered from his father's lack of love, recognition and attention. (0) No (12) Yes f. Anthony DiFrisco's mother was unable to provide him with the discipline and guidance he needed while growing up. (0) No (12) Yes g. Anthony DiFrisco could not turn to his two older brothers for guidance and support because they were drug abusers. (0) No (12) Yes h. Anthony DiFrisco never developed any self-esteem. (0) No (12) Yes
(0) No (12) Yes j. Anthony DiFrisco's excessive drug abuse affected his ability to make sound judgments. (8) No (4) Yes k. Anthony DiFrisco was vulnerable and susceptible to the older Franciotti because he looked up to him as a father figure. (0) No (12) Yes l. Anthony DiFrisco was dependent upon Franciotti for drugs. (11) No (1) Yes m. Anthony DiFrisco allowed himself to be manipulated by Anthony Franciotti. (0) No (12) Yes n. Anthony DiFrisco's motivation in confessing to the murder was remorse. (12) No (0) Yes o. Anthony DiFrisco remains remorseful about killing Edward Potcher. (11) No (1) Yes p. Edward Potcher's killing would have remained unsolved, if Anthony DiFrisco himself had not confessed. (0) No (12) Yes q. Any other factor which is relevant to the defendant's character or record or to the circumstances of the offense. (12) No (0) Yes As indicated, one or more jurors found thirteen of the mitigating factors. Of those thirteen, the jury found nine factors unanimously, including that defendant's emotional maturity level was stunted due to drug addiction, that defendant was vulnerable and susceptible to Franciotti, that defendant allowed himself to be manipulated by Franciotti, and that the murder itself would have remained unsolved had defendant not confessed. The jury concluded that it was unanimously satisfied that the one aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial court sentenced defendant to death.