Welcome to the Friends of Michael Goodwin website. We are dedicated to the exoneration and release of Michael F. Goodwin, the apprehension and conviction of the true perpetrators of the Mickey and Trudy Thompson murders, and the improvement of true justice, fairness and efficiency in our legal system. 

WHY MICHAEL GOODWIN NEVER GOT A FAIR TRIAL IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

1. Original charges in Orange County, CA, were dismissed due to a lack of verifiable claims and jurisdiction. The murders occurred in Los Angeles County. 
2. Michael was illegally retried in Los Angeles County, CA, on the same charges - and found guilty. Michael is the victim of both wrongful conviction and violation of arrest procedure. No arrest affidavit has ever been produced to this day, rendering the Los Angeles conviction null and void according to the law. Double jeopardy?
3. In addition to the above arrest violation of law, there was no affidavit provided for search nor to put Goodwin in a lineup.
4. The judge refused to allow the defense to present a list of people that wanted Mickey Thompson dead, to prevent compelling evidence regarding drug dealing. Then, in the jury instructions, asked the jury, "Who else could have done it?" 
5. The Jury Foreperson's sworn declaration to the Court stated that there was NO evidence produced linking Michael Goodwin to the killers. The lack of other suspects compelled the Jury Foreman to then vote guilty. (Read the original document here.)
6. Key witness John Bradley, friend of both Mickey Thompson and Michael Goodwin, is not called to testify that Mickey Thompson never complained to him that Michael Goodwin was making threatening phone calls to him, as alleged by the prosecution. And Bradley had talked to Mickey Thompson shortly before the murder.
7. The judge ruled that Goodwin never paid Thompson a debt from a prior civil court ruling that he still owed Mickey and that he hired killers to avoid ever having to pay that debt. The Judge ruled that was the whole case. Prosecutors and Goodwin's own lawyer kept official prior court records from the judge and jury that showed that Goodwin had in fact paid in full as required by law, but Mickey's sister and lawyer stole and fraudulently diverted most of the cash and assets intended to pay Mickey. 

8. Michael Goodwin was convicted in great part by the prosecutor's claim that he was seen prior to the murder in a car at the bottom of the hill, 1.6 miles from the Thompson home and not visible from that location. The allegation was that he was scouting the killer's escape route the week before the murders. The vehicle was later identified as a DEA car.

   Was the DEA gathering license plate numbers of cars coming down the street after making their "drop" at the Thompson residence (and not Michael Goodwin, as testified in the trial)? Was (murdered) nephew Scott Campbell and the Vagos motorcycle gang involved? New evidence found by an outside professional investigator shows the Thompson murders were from drug dealing. 

9. Incorrect and illegal jury instructions were given by the judge and/or by the prosecutors.
10. Refusal of the judge to recuse herself as she was a former employee of the prosecutor.

Write to Michael at:

Attorney Legal Documents

1. MURDER TRIAL TRANSCRIPT

2. MICHAEL'S DIRECT APPEAL COURT DECISION

3. FRANKS MOTION

__________________________________________

"Pay Dirt: The Story of Supercross" Teaser on Vimeo

Sign up or view for updates on movie screenings (Click on "Screenings" in the upper left-hand side of the page for the theater screening schedule.)

Jury Forepersons Declaration

The Michael Goodwin Story

Michael's Old Website (Lots of good links, but some documents are now outdated)

Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws or oaths remained on the bench

1972 Superbowl of Supercross

__________________________________________

Michael Goodwin asks, "What does ChatGPT have to say about my conviction, based solely on the Murder Trial Transcript (RT)? 

Under California criminal law, I understand that in an uncharged conspiracy homicide case, where it was stipulated I was not the killer, but rather the prosecution claim was that I conspired with the alleged killers and that the whole case was acknowledged as circumstantial, that it is a required element of the crime to convict that jurors vote/decide/agree that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was offered proving I was linked to the killers. It also seems the jury instructions are emphatic on that. I want to be certain, was linking me to the killers a required to convict element of the crime? 

ChatGPT responds:

Under California criminal law, in a conspiracy homicide case where it is stipulated that you were not the actual killer, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you entered into a criminal agreement (the conspiracy) and that you intentionally participated in furthering the unlawful objective, which in this case would be the homicide. Connecting you to the alleged killers is central to this determination.

Key Legal Points

1. Elements of Conspiracy:

   • An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.
   • Specific intent to agree and to commit the target crime.
   • At least one overt act by any conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.

2. Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
   The prosecution must establish a direct or circumstantial connection between you and the alleged conspirators (the killers). Without such a link, there is no agreement, which is an essential element of conspiracy.

3. Jury Instructions:
   California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) emphasize the need for jurors to unanimously agree that:

   • You entered into an agreement with at least one of the alleged conspirators to commit the crime.
   • You had the intent to commit the crime.
   • A connection between you and the co-conspirators is critical to this determination.

4. Circumstantial Evidence in Conspiracy Cases:
   Even in a circumstantial case, the evidence must demonstrate that you were tied to the conspiracy and co-conspirators. The jury must find this link beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case Law Supporting This

Relevant California case law and decisions from the 9th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court support the principle that without evidence of a connection between the defendant and the co-conspirators, a conspiracy conviction cannot stand. These cases include:

• People v. Zamora (1976) 18 Cal.3d 538: Reiterates the necessity of proving the elements of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Melchor-Lopez (9th Cir. 1980) 627 F.2d 886: Emphasizes the need for a connection between the accused and other conspirators.
• In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358: Establishes that the prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

Yes, linking you to the alleged killers is a required element to convict in a conspiracy homicide case. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were connected to the killers through a conspiracy to commit the homicide. If the jury instructions emphasized this and the prosecution failed to meet this burden, it would constitute a significant issue for appeal or post-conviction relief.

Michael responded to ChatGPT:

Pursuant to the question above you gave us the answer yes, the required element, but you only cited "conspiracy" in the summary. Note that my question was about "Uncharged conspiracy" which prosecutors claimed existed but supplied no evidence connecting me to the killers. 

ChatGPT said:

Thank you for the clarification. If the prosecution alleged an uncharged conspiracy to support a homicide case but did not present evidence linking you to the alleged killers, then their case would fail a crucial evidentiary requirement under California law. Here's why:

Key Legal Framework for Uncharged Conspiracies

In California criminal law, an uncharged conspiracy may sometimes be used to establish liability for a crime, such as homicide, as part of a theory of aiding and abetting or to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence. However, this theory still requires the prosecution to establish certain elements with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. These include:

1. Connection to the Alleged Conspirators: Even if the conspiracy is uncharged, the prosecution must prove you had knowledge of and agreed to participate in the conspiracy with the alleged killers. This connection is fundamental to using an uncharged conspiracy as a basis for liability.

2. Agreement and Intent: The prosecution must show:

   • You entered into an agreement with at least one other person to commit an unlawful act (in this case, the homicide).
   • You intended to further the objective of the conspiracy.

3. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The jury must find that there is evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that ties you to the conspiracy and links you to the alleged killers.

Uncharged Conspiracy as a Theory

When using an uncharged conspiracy theory:

• The jury instructions (such as those in CALCRIM 416 or CALCRIM 417) require the prosecution to prove that you and the alleged conspirators agreed to commit the unlawful act and that at least one overt act was committed in furtherance of the agreement.
• The prosecution cannot merely speculate that a conspiracy existed without presenting actual evidence connecting you to the conspirators.

Failure to Link You to the Alleged Killers

If the prosecution failed to present evidence connecting you to the killers, their uncharged conspiracy theory collapses. Jurors cannot convict based solely on:

• Speculation or inference without evidence of a direct or circumstantial link.
• The claim that a conspiracy "must have existed" without proving your involvement.

Relevant Case Law

• People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233: Evidence must prove that the defendant had an agreement with co-conspirators to commit the crime. Mere association or presence is insufficient.
• United States v. Jimenez Recio (2003) 537 U.S. 270: The prosecution must show evidence of active participation in or agreement to the conspiracy.
• In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358: Establishes that all elements of a criminal charge, including conspiratorial involvement, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jury Instructions Emphasize the Requirement

California jury instructions mandate that jurors agree on the specific facts that establish the elements of the crime, including the defendant's connection to the conspiracy and the alleged killers. Without such evidence, a conviction cannot legally stand.

Conclusion

For an uncharged conspiracy theory to support a conviction, it is a required element that the prosecution provide evidence linking you to the alleged killers. If they failed to do so, the jury should not have been able to convict, as the circumstantial case would lack the necessary foundation of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This issue could form the basis for challenging the conviction.