Archer Case

The Crime, Case, and Outcome

The victim, M.G., testified that, on March 1, 1989, she went to Carteret Park in Glen Ridge, New Jersey to play basketball. While she was shooting baskets, she was greeted by the defendants, Christopher Archer, Paul Archer, Bryant Grober, Peter Quigley, who she knew since grade school. Grober told M.G. that she would be able to go out with Paul, if she went with them to Kevin and Kyle Scherzers’ basement. While on their way to the Scherzers’ house, Christopher Archer put his arm around M.G.; she thought of this as romantic. When she arrived, she sat on the couch with Grober. One witness called by the defense and three by the State, all testified that M.G. offered Grober a blowjob, performed it, and that Grober issued

Dr. Susan Esquilin, a psychologist specializing in sexual abuse, observed that M.G. was at a high risk of victimization because “she was so focused on what somebody else wants and needs and not what she feels she wants or needs … she’s like to do what anybody asks her to do.” To M.G. her sexuality was primarily the way of her pleasing others. Dr. Gerald Meyerhoff, a psychiatrist specializing in children and mental retardation, diagnosed that M.G. was mildly-mentally retarded with ADHD. He said she was at times sexually aggressive to fulfill a friendship. He believed she can lie and being deceptive and did not believe she had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD,) or rape trauma syndrome (RTS.) On the other hand, Dr. Ann Burgess who specialized in rape trauma, does believe that M.G. has RTS. Burgess used an event drawing series to evaluate M.G., and it was used to get visual and verbal information in a non-leading fashion. Unfortunately for the defense, they missed the deadlines to have their psychiatrist question M.G. in rebuttal to the State’s expert. Dr. Burgess’ testimony and ability to testify on certain subjects are very controversial in court systems, which will later be explained. (State v. Scherzer,

The expert testimony of RTS is tough to use in court proceedings; it depends on the purpose of the testimony to see if it’s admissible or not. When it comes to experts testifying on the matter, there’s two purposes; the first one being to educate jurors on sexual assault victim’s reactions, and the second purpose is to correct any misconceptions or rape myths about sexual assault. Sometimes when victims exhibit different, odd behaviors, an RTS psychological expert can explain it. (Costanzo & Krauss,