Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Carmeta Albarus

Text: Thus, it was Soto and Liguori who made the decision regarding Ms. Alfonso's replacement. Instead of requesting an adjournment, they decided that one of Ms. Alfonso's assistants, Carmeta Albarus, would replace Ms. Alfonso as the mitigation expert. Alfonso opposed the decision, telling counsel that Albarus was not an appropriate choice because of her lack of educational credentials and her lack of experience in testifying. Liguori explained that although Ms. Alfonso recommended social worker Billy Feinberg, she was not chosen because she did not know the case. Although Albarus lacked a degree in social work, she was familiar with the file. Prior to her assignment to testify as an expert witness, Albarus was a case manager at Alfonso Associates, which meant that her involvement with the case had been limited to filing and making sure the client was being seen and certain things were being done. Soto characterized the decision to use Albarus as tactical. According to her, Albarus was preferable to Feinberg because Albarus was familiar with DiFrisco's file, had worked on many capital cases, and was relied on heavily by Ms. Alfonso. Soto stated that she consulted with her supervisors, Krakora and Kapin, and other attorneys at the Public Defender's Office, and that they agreed with her that Albarus would be the more appropriate witness to put forth that psycho-social evidence. However, Krakora did not recall those conversations, and Kapin denied that he ever discussed that decision with Soto. Indeed, Kapin testified that he never even knew that there was a replacement witness problem. At any rate, in December 1992, the attention of defense counsel turned to transforming Albarus into an expert witness. Those preparations included having Albarus re-interview several of the witnesses previously interviewed by other Alfonso employees so that she would have personal knowledge of the individuals and the information; developing Albarus' resume, because she had not previously testified and did not have a prepared resume; and submitting a second report, dated January 22, 1993, that reiterated the preliminary conclusions and incorporated information adduced from the additional interviews. The new information covered in the second report was described in the unsigned cover letter that accompanied the report: Follow-up interviews conducted with Mr. Anthony DiFrisco, his father, Alfred DiFrisco; his mother, Anna DiFrisco, and his step-mother, Janet DiFrisco; and his siblings, Fred and Fran DiFrisco[.] [W]e have also conducted interviews with his aunt and uncle, Mary and Joseph Grillo. A copy of the decree of divorce granted to Alfred DiFrisco, dated 11/29/72 was also reviewed. The letter stated that the substance of the report bore no significant changes and the themes and issues remain consistent with the June 9, 1992 report. The bulk of the additional investigation that Ms. Alfonso originally had identified as necessary to complete the mitigation investigation interviews of teachers, family members, and former girlfriends, review of parole records, and investigation of DiFrisco's drug addiction prior to the offensenever was done.