Jury Finds Former East Point Officer Guilty in Sexual Assault Retrial, Fox 5 Reports
Fox 5 Atlanta reports conflicting accounts of the outcome in the retrial of former East Point police officer Richard Gooddine.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 6:01 p.m. ET
Fox 5 Atlanta reports conflicting accounts of the outcome in the retrial of former East Point police officer Richard Gooddine. One report says a jury found Gooddine guilty on multiple felony counts, including aggravated sexual battery, while another says proceedings continued in the retrial. The case is in district court.
Gooddine is being retried on felony charges stemming from allegations that he sexually assaulted multiple women and a 15-year-old minor while on duty between 2016 and 2018, according to Fox 5 Atlanta. Prosecutors said Gooddine used his badge and squad car to sexually assault vulnerable victims, including a 15-year-old girl, during that period.
The cause of the allegations has not been determined, and no finding has been made connecting Gooddine to the alleged conduct.
Earlier reports
Sep 2, 2026, 6:01 p.m. ETFirst report
DNA Analysis Presented in Retrial of Former East Point Officer Richard Gooddine
Proceedings continued in the sexual assault retrial of former East Point police officer Richard Gooddine, with the jury hearing DNA analysis described as key evidence, according to FOX 5 Atlanta.
Gooddine is being retried on felony charges stemming from allegations that he sexually assaulted multiple women and a 15-year-old minor while on duty between 2016 and 2018, the outlet reported.
The case is being heard in district court and is at a contested stage. The allegations are as reported by FOX 5 Atlanta; no verdict has been reached.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 28 Sept 2026, 22:19current
Updated to reflect conflicting reports on the verdict and proceeding stage.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 22:22
First published.
- Version 12 Sept 2026, 22:01current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.