Goodwin Case: D.A. Has a Lot to Lose

As if Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas needed any more bad news.

Fresh from battle on fronts both inside and outside his office, the D.A. now must convince a skeptical state appeals court that one of his most high-profile murder cases shouldn’t be moved out of the county.

If he fails, it’s not crazy to ask if the entire case would topple.

The murder case against Michael Goodwin, charged with arranging the March 1988 killings in Los Angeles County of former business partner Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy, is set for trial early next year, but the Santa Ana appeals court wants to know why the case was even filed in Orange County.

Goodwin and his supporters have been asking that since his arrest and incarceration 11 months ago but claim to know the answer.

They contend that Rackauckas’ long friendship with Collene Campbell, a notable South County political figure and Thompson’s sister, influenced the decision to prosecute Goodwin.

Rackauckas denies that, but the accusation plays into a recurring theme plaguing Rackauckas: that personal relationships have driven some of his decisions in office.

Goodwin contends that Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective Mark Lillienfeld has spearheaded a corrupt -- if dogged -- investigation and then went shopping for a prosecutor after the Los Angeles D.A.’s office refused to charge Goodwin.

Thompson, a prominent auto racing promoter, and his wife were gunned down in the driveway of their Bradbury home in the San Gabriel Valley as they were leaving for work. Authorities believe two gunmen did the shooting and then fled on bicycles.

Orange County claims jurisdiction because Goodwin and Thompson had rancorous business dealings in the county that, investigators allege, are at the heart of Goodwin’s motive to kill the Thompsons. They also allege that Goodwin partly hatched the murders while living in Laguna Beach.

Apparently not yet persuaded by either argument, the appeals court has given Orange County a few weeks to explain why the case shouldn’t be transferred to Los Angeles.

The court also set a Feb. 21 hearing if the matter remains unresolved.

“The venue is the issue,” says Goodwin attorney Jeffrey Friedman, “but the implications are far broader, in the sense that I believe that the failure of the D.A. to establish venue is a direct result of the D.A. failing to have a case.”

Assistant Orange County Dist. Atty. Bryan Brown says the office has devoted more than two years to the case and will press on.

“We feel very strongly the case should be tried down here,” he says.

“We feel at this point it wouldn’t be beneficial for the people of California to have to transfer it to some other agency or jurisdiction where all the institutional memory we’ve accumulated with our lawyers would be wasted.”

Could Orange County prosecutors, denied of local jurisdiction, simply set up shop in an L.A. courtroom? Or, would L.A., which more than once declined to file charges against Goodwin, enter the fray?

The answers aren’t yet clear, Brown says. But Friedman says he can’t picture the Orange County D.A.’s office trying the case in Los Angeles. If the transfer order stands and Orange County loses jurisdiction, Friedman says, the case should be dismissed.

It’s too early to pronounce the Goodwin prosecution in trouble. But with Goodwin already in jail for nearly a year, and with the appeals court asking, in effect, why the case was filed here in the first place, his protestations ring a bit louder and truer.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.