Opinion ID: 2159715
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Peter Schiffman

Text: Just three weeks before the penalty retrial, Soto retained Dr. Peter Schiffman to testify as an expert witness on drug abuse and its effects on judgment. That decision marked a departure from defense counsel's earlier strategy, which had been to keep from the jury evidence of DiFrisco's drug use. As Liguori explained, counsel wanted to avoid the impression that DiFrisco was a drug-crazed fiend. Soto explained that the decision to use Schiffman was tactical, because drug addiction was a very viable explanation for committing this offense, although she agreed it was not a replacement for other mitigating evidence, such as remorse, which she said she planned to present through a witness other than Schiffman. Soto stated that she made the decision to call Schiffman after consulting with her supervisors, Krakora and Kapin. Once again, Krakora had no recollection of speaking to Soto about the matter or advising her to use Schiffman. Kapin testified that he did not discuss Schiffman with Soto and that, if he had discussed the issue, he would have strongly advised Soto not to retain Schiffman because of a prior bad experience he had with him. Liguori testified that he actually recalled Kapin advising Soto against using Schiffman. According to Soto, the plan was to limit Schiffman's testimony to the effects of drug abuse in general. He would not address whether DiFrisco had used drugs at or near the time of the offense. Soto limited the scope of his testimony because discovery deadlines had long since passed, and she was concerned the trial court would not otherwise permit Schiffman to testify. Furthermore, the investigation, such as it was, had failed to uncover sufficient documentary corroboration supporting DiFrisco's claim that he had been using drugs at the time of the offense. On December 16, 1992, defense counsel made a proffer to the trial court regarding Schiffman's testimony. Soto told the court that Schiffman would testify about the pharmacology, the variations in usage which would include free-basing, IV use, [and] snorting and the general effects of cocaine and heroin on the individual. Soto further represented to the court that, although Schiffman had conducted interviews with DiFrisco and his siblings and had come to the conclusion that DiFrisco had a long history of drug abuse that had continued up to the time of his incarceration for the killing of Potcher, Schiffman would not offer an opinion with respect to the defendant's specific state of mind at the moment when the crime was done or when he was hired to do the crime, nor would he testify that the defendant did not know the nature of his acts or what [he was] doing. Based upon those limitations, which essentially rendered Schiffman's testimony useless, the court allowed the witness to testify.