Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Penalty Retrial

Text: Jury selection took place from January 11 through January 25, 1993. On February 1, 1993, the penalty trial commenced. On the morning that opening statements were to be given, Soto and Liguori met with assistant Prosecutor Norman Menz to discuss once more DiFrisco's cooperation with the State's investigation of Franciotti. Because the prosecutor's office still would not offer a life sentence in return for DiFrisco's cooperation, Soto, like DeLuca before her, cut off communication, persisting in the view that it was not in DiFrisco's interest to cooperate. In its opening argument, the State described DiFrisco's confession to the Potcher killing and portrayed DiFrisco's offense as a premeditated murder for hire. The prosecutor underscored DiFrisco's failure to cooperate, and concluded with the statement: [I]f ever there were a case where someone should get the death penalty, this is the case, and the time is now. Liguori focused on the confession in his opening statement and argued that it was a sign of remorse. He told the jury that DiFrisco's confession, for which he received nothing in return, could be explained only by his internal suffering for the crime he had committed. Liguori also emphasized the extent to which DiFrisco had, in fact, cooperated with the police regarding Franciotti. He described DiFrisco's family life generally, including the absence of male role models, and pointed out that Franciotti stepped into that void, providing DiFrisco with drugs and acting as a father figure. Liguori suggested that Franciotti manipulated DiFrisco into committing the offense and had manipulated this case ... this whole process. DiFrisco was not, Liguori concluded, a kill again and kill again hit man, but a one-time, drug dependent killer whose crime was directed by an older, controlling man. The State's evidence, presented over the course of two days, was largely the same as it had been at the first penalty trial, recounting the investigation, the crime scene, and DiFrisco's confession. DiFrisco's testimony from the first penalty trial was read to the jury, and a dental expert testified that the tooth marks left on a slice of pizza recovered from the crime scene were made by DiFrisco. The defense case lasted one day. It consisted of the testimony of Albarus, Schiffman, and DiFrisco's sister, father, brother, and mother.
Albarus testified as a mitigation specialist. [4] She acknowledged that a full psycho-social history had not been completed but narrated the basic story recounted by the DiFrisco family including Fred DiFrisco Sr.'s life-long emotional unavailability to DiFrisco; his mother's depression; the history of drug abuse among all of the DiFrisco boys, including the 1987 death of the eldest son, Richard, by overdose. Finally, she briefly discussed DiFrisco's relationship with Franciotti, stating that Franciotti supplied DiFrisco with drugs. Albarus was discredited as a witness when the prosecutor elicited that she did not have an undergraduate degree in psychology, let alone an advanced degree of any kind, and that she lacked training in substance abuse. She was further impeached based on the contrast between her lack of qualifications and the credentials of Ms. Alfonso. Finally, when the prosecutor elicited that the expert report submitted by Albarus was virtually identical to the prior report submitted by Ms. Alfonso, it left the jury with the negativebut accurateimpression that Albarus had adopted the findings of her supervisor, simply reproducing and signing Alfonso's report and presenting it as her own.
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.
In summation, Soto argued to the jury that DiFrisco's confession to an otherwise unsolved murder should weigh heavily against the imposition of a death sentence. She further argued that DiFrisco's cooperation with the police in their investigation of Franciotti should be considered in his favor, and that his remorseconveyed through both his statements to the police that he wanted to clean the slate and his inability to sleep after the murdershould weigh against a finding that he was a cold-blooded killer for hire. Soto briefly discussed Franciotti's influence on DiFrisco, stating that Franciotti had used him, manipulating him by providing him with the one thing that he couldn't control, drugs, and the other thing that he craved, parental approval. The State's closing argument reviewed all of the evidence in the case that supported the aggravating factors and specifically contended that there was no evidence of DiFrisco's remorse. The prosecutor painted a portrait of DiFrisco as a cold-blooded hit-man for hire. The jury returned a verdict the next day. In terms of aggravating factors, the jury found unanimously that the murder was for pecuniary gain but rejected the existence of the second aggravating factor, that the murder was committed for the purpose of escaping detection for another crime. It unanimously rejected four mitigating factorsthat DiFrisco was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance and was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions on account of intoxication; that he was dependent on Franciotti for drugs; that his motive in confessing to the murder was remorse; and any other factor. Of the remaining factors, the jury unanimously found that nine had been established: (1) DiFrisco's childhood and upbringing; (2) his suffering due to his father's lack of love and attention; (3) his mother's inability to provide discipline and guidance; (4) the unavailability of his older brothers for support due to their drug abuse; (5) his failure to develop any self-esteem; (6) his stunted maturity level due to drugs; (7) his vulnerability to Franciotti as a father figure; (8) his manipulation by Franciotti; and (9) that Potcher's killing would have remained unsolved but for his confession. The jury split 6-6 on whether DiFrisco had rendered substantial assistance to the State in the prosecution of another for murder. Regarding whether his excessive drug use affected his ability to make sound judgments, eight voted no and four yes. Finally, on whether DiFrisco remained remorseful about the killing, eleven voted no and one yes. The jury unanimously concluded that the sole aggravating factor that had been established outweighed the mitigating factors, and DiFrisco accordingly was sentenced to death.