minds.
Prosecutor David Thiele bluntly told the jury in his final arguments: “It is an either-or situation. There are only two possible murderers of Dennis Archer: Pitre or Guidry. Evidence has proved that the actual killing was done by Guidry.”
Thiele reminded the jury of Pitre’s testimony that he and the victim’s wife were in his apartment making love at the time of the murder. “Roland Pitre would not have had time to go out and do the killing himself. Roland Pitre was not the triggerman. Steven Guidry was the triggerman, and Maria Archer was a participant in the plot.”
Thiele pointed out a “fourfold” reason for Maria’s wanting her husband dead: “She wanted to rid herself of a husband she no longer loved or [even] liked.” Added to that, Archer’s death would clear the way, Thiele said, for Maria to marry Roland Pitre, give her financial gain in the amount of $120,000, and protect her from losing her children in a custody suit stemming from a divorce action.
Gil Mullen, Maria’s attorney, struck hard at Roland Pitre’s credibility as a witness. “The state’s case has got to rise or fall on the testimony of Roland Pitre. And Roland Pitre is a thief, a faker, a cold-blooded, violent, confessed murderer and an unmitigated liar!”
Mullen did not attempt to paint Maria as a saint. “Maria Archer admits she had an affair with Roland Pitre, and she was ashamed and not very proud of it; but she is not here on trial for having an affair. She is not here on trial for committing sexual indiscretions. She is here on trial for murder—premeditated murder.”
Richard Hansen, Steven Guidry’s attorney, enlarged on the defense’s belief that Pitre was a liar. “If you convict these two innocent people, that is going to help Roland Pitre. He has a strong incentive to help convict these innocent people to help himself. It would cut off half or probably more of his sentence.”
By testifying against his former mistress and his former best friend, Roland Pitre was now allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder, and he would indeed have a much shorter sentence than life in prison.
4
And so, on New Year’s Eve 1980, the tangle of evidence and testimony went at last to the jury. The press bench vacillated. As one reporter remarked, “One day, I think ‘guilty’ and then the next I think ‘not guilty.’ I wouldn’t want to be on the jury.”
After eleven hours, the jury came back.
The verdicts…Steven Guidry: first-degree murder, not guilty; conspiracy to commit murder, not guilty. Maria Archer: first-degree murder, not guilty; conspiracy to commit murder, not guilty.
Steven Guidry broke into tears. Maria Archer’s face was void of any expression. Then she smiled. Afterward, she told the press, “Anybody who had any sense could see what was right and what was true. It was ridiculous—having to go through all this.”
She spoke of her former lover, Roland Pitre, “I’d like to feel sorry for him. Sometimes I do. But that does not change the fact that he’s a liar and the most unscrupulous person I ever met.”
Maria said she didn’t care about the financial benefits derived from her husband’s death. Looking toward her former in-laws, she said, “I don’t care about the money. I’m not fighting them. They can keep it.”
If ever a murder case was over but yet not over at all, it was the bizarre killing of Dennis Archer. It was possible, some observers felt, that the man about to be sentenced for his murder, Roland Pitre, might not have committed the actual crime. The only eyewitnesses, the Archer children, were blocked from testifying in court by motions by the defense that stated that the children, at 7 and 10, were too young to be accurate witnesses. (That isn’t necessarily true. It depends on the child; in retrospect, it was probably far more beneficial to the children to keep them from testifying against their own mother.)
If they had seen a “strange man,” it might
Prosecutor David Thiele bluntly told the jury in his final arguments: “It is an either-or situation. There are only two possible murderers of Dennis Archer: Pitre or Guidry. Evidence has proved that the actual killing was done by Guidry.”
Thiele reminded the jury of Pitre’s testimony that he and the victim’s wife were in his apartment making love at the time of the murder. “Roland Pitre would not have had time to go out and do the killing himself. Roland Pitre was not the triggerman. Steven Guidry was the triggerman, and Maria Archer was a participant in the plot.”
Thiele pointed out a “fourfold” reason for Maria’s wanting her husband dead: “She wanted to rid herself of a husband she no longer loved or [even] liked.” Added to that, Archer’s death would clear the way, Thiele said, for Maria to marry Roland Pitre, give her financial gain in the amount of $120,000, and protect her from losing her children in a custody suit stemming from a divorce action.
Gil Mullen, Maria’s attorney, struck hard at Roland Pitre’s credibility as a witness. “The state’s case has got to rise or fall on the testimony of Roland Pitre. And Roland Pitre is a thief, a faker, a cold-blooded, violent, confessed murderer and an unmitigated liar!”
Mullen did not attempt to paint Maria as a saint. “Maria Archer admits she had an affair with Roland Pitre, and she was ashamed and not very proud of it; but she is not here on trial for having an affair. She is not here on trial for committing sexual indiscretions. She is here on trial for murder—premeditated murder.”
Richard Hansen, Steven Guidry’s attorney, enlarged on the defense’s belief that Pitre was a liar. “If you convict these two innocent people, that is going to help Roland Pitre. He has a strong incentive to help convict these innocent people to help himself. It would cut off half or probably more of his sentence.”
By testifying against his former mistress and his former best friend, Roland Pitre was now allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder, and he would indeed have a much shorter sentence than life in prison.
4
And so, on New Year’s Eve 1980, the tangle of evidence and testimony went at last to the jury. The press bench vacillated. As one reporter remarked, “One day, I think ‘guilty’ and then the next I think ‘not guilty.’ I wouldn’t want to be on the jury.”
After eleven hours, the jury came back.
The verdicts…Steven Guidry: first-degree murder, not guilty; conspiracy to commit murder, not guilty. Maria Archer: first-degree murder, not guilty; conspiracy to commit murder, not guilty.
Steven Guidry broke into tears. Maria Archer’s face was void of any expression. Then she smiled. Afterward, she told the press, “Anybody who had any sense could see what was right and what was true. It was ridiculous—having to go through all this.”
She spoke of her former lover, Roland Pitre, “I’d like to feel sorry for him. Sometimes I do. But that does not change the fact that he’s a liar and the most unscrupulous person I ever met.”
Maria said she didn’t care about the financial benefits derived from her husband’s death. Looking toward her former in-laws, she said, “I don’t care about the money. I’m not fighting them. They can keep it.”
If ever a murder case was over but yet not over at all, it was the bizarre killing of Dennis Archer. It was possible, some observers felt, that the man about to be sentenced for his murder, Roland Pitre, might not have committed the actual crime. The only eyewitnesses, the Archer children, were blocked from testifying in court by motions by the defense that stated that the children, at 7 and 10, were too young to be accurate witnesses. (That isn’t necessarily true. It depends on the child; in retrospect, it was probably far more beneficial to the children to keep them from testifying against their own mother.)
If they had seen a “strange man,” it might
Similar Books
