GOODWIN FOUND GUILTY:   At about 11:30 AM on January 4th in the Pasadena courtroom where the Thompson murder trial had played out over 5 weeks, it was as an auditory eclipse.  Stunned, the courtroom went from hushed quiet to eerie silence as the word “guilty” leapt from Judge Schwartz’s lips, convicting Michael F. Goodwin of the brutal murders of Mickey and Trudy Thompson.  Schwartz read the verdict as though she was describing the location of emergency exits and the operation of a seat belt to bored passengers, mechanically, cavalierly.

TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUMENTAL IN CONVICTION:   Judge Teri Schwartz, the judge who had presided over the Thompson murder trial, seemed detached from the dire verdict, yet, it was her extraordinary, obvious bias and obtuse rulings that fed L.A. ’s conviction machine and secured a surprised Patrick Dixon his umpteenth guilty verdict.   Before becoming a judge, Schwartz had, for many years, been a prosecutor herself, working for Dixon , top attorney in the L.A. District Attorney’s office and lead prosecutor in the Mickey Thompson murder trial.

"I was surprised how often Schwartz overruled Saris' objections and denied her motions while, conversely, sustaining prosecutors' objections and granting their motions,” said Frank Mickadeit, covering the trail in his popular Orange County Register column.

PROSECUTORS ASSAULT THE DEFENSE WITH AID FROM COURT:  Perhaps the turning point of the trial was the frontal assault on the court lodged by Dixon and Alan Jackson, assistant prosecutor, besieging the court not to allow evidence of others who may have been responsible for the Thompson murders.  In spite the overwhelming body of evidence, much of it direct, Schwartz would not permit the defense to present this evidence to the jury.  The suspect confessed, twice; failed 3 polygraph exams; was described by 2 witnesses as having been at the crime scene; identified by 5 witnesses as having been frantically hitchhiking a short distance from the murder scene, holding a bicycle, just minutes after the murders; had no alibi nor any business being in Bradbury; had connections with Thompson; and even knew facts about the murders never released to the public.  Nevertheless, the judge called the evidence “irrelevant,” mainly because much of it was circumstantial and police officials “never made a case against this suspect.”  However, the original lead detective, who had developed the prime suspect, had been ordered, in 1988, to drop his investigation when it was determined there was no connection to Goodwin. Those investigating the Thompson murders were then directed to pursue Goodwin as a suspect, even though there was little or no evidence implicating Goodwin.   

JURORS NOT GIVEN CRITICAL INFORMATION ON OTHER SUSPECTS: In a statement to the media following the trial, the jury foreman echoed the position of other members of the jury: "There were so many reasons in everyone's mind that it would be a logical, reasonable deduction to say, 'Who else?' You know what I mean? Who else?"    Judge Schwartz effectively blocked a possible answer to the jurors’ overriding question, “Who else could possibly have committed the crimes?” 

WOULD CRITICAL EVIDENCE HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE:    Is it probable that this crucial evidence would have instilled some doubt about Goodwin’s guilt in one or more jurors?  When a popular L.A. Times columnist, Dana Parsons, posed the question “Would the strong evidence of another suspect have made a difference in the verdict?”  jury foreman, Mark Matthews, replied:  "Whether that would have made a difference, who knows. I understand the question, I really do, it's a very interesting one. But it's more complex than saying, 'If we had known this, would it have been different?' Maybe yes, maybe no."

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OK FOR PROSECUTION; NOT FOR DEFENSE: When the Mickey Thompson murder trial defense attorneys attempted to introduce evidence that robbery was a possible motive, Schwartz again stepped in, ruling for the prosecutors’ objections, a desperate attempt on Dixon’s part to prevent the defense from creating reasonable doubt.  It worked.  In spite of the fact that all of the case against Goodwin was circumstantial, theory, supposition or innuendo, Schwartz would not allow admission to the jury, because it was circumstantial, additional evidence of other suspects, none connected to Goodwin. The defense presented a theory that the killings could possibly have been a robbery of $250,000 in gold that Mickey Thompson had purchased days before, and that had disappeared at the time of, the murders.  Schwartz defused this by excluding key portions of the testimony identifying the purchase as gold, how it was delivered to Thompson and how the killers might have carried it off in the satchels witnesses saw them with as they rode away from the crime scene.

COURT ASSIST IN CONVICTION:   It is undeniable that the Dixon/Jackson prosecution team’s theatrics and blatant misrepresentations of the facts in the case, played well to the jury.  They could not have accomplished this fete of conviction with no concrete evidence, however, without considerable support from the court.  Dixon/Jackson were able to take a case with no direct evidence and convince 12 people of Goodwin’s guilt using highly questionable circumstantial evidence.

“PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” VS. “REASONABLE DOUBT:” Jurors misunderstood the jury instructions since, following the trial, some spoke of “preponderance of evidence,” the standard in civil cases when the much higher standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” is the only standard that can be used in criminal cases. Although the defense theme was “…this is not what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a murder case looks like!” the jury chose the much lower standard, inappropriately, of “preponderance of evidence” to convict Goodwin.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VS. DIRECT EVIDENCE:   Although Dixon went to great lengths to mislead the jury into believing that circumstantial evidence is always equal in weight to direct evidence, this is far from the truth. “There was no one thing,” said the jury’s foreman, Mark Matthews. “What really changed our minds was when we found out circumstantial evidence held the same weight as physical evidence.”   The truth is, the jury must weigh circumstantial evidence as to its reliability.  Serious questions as to reliability of most prosecution witnesses linger, especially in light of the $1 million mega-reward and the fact that virtually none of those claiming to have knowledge of alleged death threats “came forward” until after the reward was announced, 10 years or more (some, not for 17 years) after the murders casting doubt on the veracity of their testimony.

THE DEFENSE WILL MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL ON MARCH 1ST:  Because of the many “anomalies” in the trial, Elena Saris, lead defense attorney for Goodwin, will file a motion for a re-trial.  Goodwin and the defense team is confident the court will recognize these severe problems that prevented Goodwin from getting a fair trial and allow a new trial.