Morning: Testimony Explores Claims of Schizophrenia
WOODLAND, CA – The murder trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez resumed today in the Yolo County Superior Court with testimony from two experts in psychiatry, presenting their psychiatric evaluations of Dominguez.
Dominguez remains in custody, facing two felony counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and multiple special allegations including use of a deadly weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, multiple murder enhancements, and a prior felony conviction.
Continuing from the day prior, Deputy District Attorney Frits Van Der Hoek cross-examined the forensic evaluator who was responsible for authoring an evaluation of the mental health of Carlos Dominguez.
Deputy District Attorney Hoek began by inquiring about the importance of truth in the forensic evaluation process, specifically in regard to how the accused’s statements are determined to be truthful or not. The forensic evaluator maintained that it is not their responsibility nor the right of a forensic evaluator to determine the truthfulness of the accused’s claims, noting that it is the job of the court to do so.
When probed about the importance of considering the effects of stress due to looming criminal charges, the forensic evaluator conceded that the mental health evaluation process does not account for this.
Deputy District Attorney Hoek emphasized that Dominguez took multiple psychology classes as a student at UC Davis. Further, he asserted that Dominguez had at one point deeply engaged with psychology material, as he wrote a paper comparing empirical to categorical classifications in psychology.
The DDA then inquired as to whether or not the evaluative process counteracts those with knowledge of psychology. The forensic evaluator conceded that there was no such consideration or means of controlling this influence in the current evaluative process.
The DDA shifted his cross-examination to the notorious Rosenhan study. He asked if the forensic evaluator would be willing to detail what occurred in the study.
The evaluator obliged and explained that, in the study, multiple volunteers, having no documented mental problems, were asked to seek out psychiatric hospitals. The volunteers then acted as if they were hearing voices, and, according to the study, all of them were admitted to these hospitals even though they did not suffer from any legitimate condition.
After some further questioning about what case-specific evidence the evaluator was familiar with, the DDA inquired as to how many evaluations the forensic evaluator had performed previously.
The forensic evaluator responded that this was his first time conducting a forensic evaluation.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson opened his re-examination by individually listing off each name on the list of witnesses to confirm that the forensic evaluator had watched the recordings involving their testimonies. The forensic evaluator affirmed that he watched all of the recordings.
Afterwards, DPD Hutchinson asked whether a police report (a summary of body camera footage) or actual body camera footage was more vital in crafting a forensic evaluation. The forensic evaluator stated that body camera footage is “invaluable” to him and his work.
DPD Hutchinson, receiving staunch confirmation from the forensic evaluator, inquired as to whether or not schizophrenia is a severe condition. The forensic evaluator elaborated by detailing the often crippling effects of schizophrenia—withdrawal from meaningful things, an inability to feel happiness, paralyzing depression, etc.
DPD Hutchinson concluded his re-examination by positing that there are many misconceptions surrounding mental health diagnoses. The forensic evaluator confirmed that it would be reasonable to claim that.
Following a short recess, Deputy Public Defender Hutchinson brought forth a new witness to the stand. After some extended questioning, DPD Hutchinson mapped out the professional background of the witness.
In short, DPD Hutchinson observed that Dr. Sarah Vinson currently serves as the chair of the Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at Morehouse, owns a private forensic and behavioral psychiatry clinic, and considers herself to be an expert in psychiatry and schizophrenia.
DPD Hutchinson established that Dr. Vinson received payment from the Public Defender’s Office to perform an independent assessment of Dominguez’s mental health and to present her findings to the court.
DPD Hutchinson then inquired as to whether or not medications are capable of reducing the symptoms of schizophrenia. Dr. Vinson confirmed that medication absolutely can.
DPD Hutchinson asked Dr. Vinson whether she noted any visible signs of schizophrenia in Dominguez. Dr. Vinson asserted that Dominguez was in fact a victim of schizophrenia. She spoke of how Dominguez was often emotionless, unexpressive, continuously failed to make eye contact with her, and often appeared unusually distracted.
DPD Hutchinson then explored Dominguez’s childhood in depth, observing that Dominguez was illegally smuggled across the border alone and at a very young age, and then forced to live with parents he did not recognize.
Dr. Vinson emphasized that multiple instances from Dominguez’s childhood classify as childhood trauma, and when this is considered in tandem with potential genetic predispositions, the likelihood of Dominguez developing schizophrenia is substantially increased.
Before entering a midday break, DPD Hutchinson inquired as to whether there are many misconceptions surrounding schizophrenia. Dr. Vinson confirmed that there are.
The examination was then paused. After an extended break, the case will resume in the afternoon and reconvene in the days to come.
Afternoon: Forensic Mental Health Specialist and Unhoused Victim’s Acquaintance Testified in Dominguez Trial
At the Yolo County Superior Court on Thursday, May 29, Judge Samuel McAdams continued to preside over Carlos Reales Dominguez’s jury trial.
Dominguez faces two felony counts of murder, one felony count of attempted murder, and multiple enhancements, including use of a deadly weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, multiple murders, and a prior felony conviction.
Early in the morning, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson, representing Dominguez, called Dr. Sarah Y. Vinson to testify on Dominguez’s mental state. Dr. Vinson’s testimony continues in the afternoon. Dr. Vinson has interviewed Dominguez while he was detained at the Yolo County Jail.
Dr. Vinson reviewed the report of the seven-hour interview that took place in the Davis Police Department between Dominguez and two detectives. Dr. Vinson claimed the report did not include sufficient information about Dominguez’s behavior during the interview.
DPD Hutchinson asked if Dr. Vinson had noticed anything unusual in the interview report. Dr. Vinson said that Dominguez’s lack of hand gestures “for hours on end” and his blank stare were not included in the summary. Dr. Vinson explained, “Those are all things that were very important to me as a mental health professional… that was not reflected in the report.”
DPD Hutchinson questioned the possible misrepresentation of Dominguez’s statements in Detective Steve Ramos’ report summary. Dr. Vinson confirmed the summary did not accurately portray the “confusion and inconsistency” in Dominguez’s responses.
Dr. Vinson also mentioned that Dominguez’s statements were “responses to leading questions” asked by the detectives. Dr. Vinson claimed that Dominguez answered certain questions with responses he believed the detectives wanted to hear.
DPD Hutchinson focused on the connection between Dominguez’s symptoms and his schizophrenia diagnosis. Dr. Vinson agreed that weight loss can be a symptom of schizophrenia, as patients may not feel or react to hunger. She also pointed out that Dominguez did not ask for food or water during his seven-hour interview with detectives.
Dr. Vinson believed Dominguez was in a state of “florid psychosis,” meaning the acute phase of schizophrenia involving extensive hallucinations. However, she also pointed out that patients in florid psychosis may still perform highly repetitive tasks, such as turning on a cellphone, going to the grocery store, or attending classes.
DPD Hutchinson then addressed Dominguez’s performance during police interrogation in relation to his schizophrenia. The interrogation footage showed Dominguez giving contradictory answers. Dr. Vinson noted that people with mental disorders are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and require special interrogation techniques.
Dr. Vinson reaffirmed her diagnosis that Dominguez has schizophrenia.
Deputy District Attorney Frits Van Der Hoek cross-examined Dr. Vinson. He reviewed her hourly rate, fellowship in psychiatry, and diagnostic process. Dr. Vinson affirmed that she made her diagnosis with consideration of the risk of malingering, based on her interview with Dominguez, as well as the interrogation footage and transcript.
DDA Van Der Hoek asked if Dr. Vinson was aware of Dominguez’s actions before and during the alleged “stabbing spree,” including allegedly attempting to meet his ex-girlfriend 10 days before the first stabbing and allegedly soliciting around the Sycamore area, where the second stabbing occurred. Dr. Vinson said she was not; however, she stated that even with that information, her diagnosis would not have changed.
In re-direct examination, DPD Hutchinson pointed out that it is against the ethics code for an expert witness to testify against their diagnosis and beliefs. Dr. Vinson concurred, stating she would not generate a report or testify in court if her diagnosis did not support the defense.
The second witness called to the stand was an unhoused man who had been present when the third victim was stabbed. DPD Hutchinson asked the witness if others were present at the encampment where the stabbing took place. The witness said four other individuals were near the victim’s tent.
The witness said there was a commotion and that he heard “everybody screaming and yelling.” At the time of the incident, the witness ran toward the noise and rendered aid to the victim after seeing another person at the scene call the police.
DPD Hutchinson asked why the witness told the victim to call the police even though others had already done so. The witness said the internet connection was poor, which is why he told the victim to call 911.
DDA Van Der Hoek began cross-examining the witness and asked if he “personally saw someone walk by” when describing the possible sighting of Dominguez. The witness explained he did not personally see someone walk by and that it was another witness who claimed to have seen Dominguez.
When asked about the attire of the person seen, DPD Hutchinson questioned, “Did someone point that out to you or did you see it?” The witness answered he was told the person seen walking was wearing Adidas pants. DPD Hutchinson asked several more times if the witness personally saw the individual. The witness admitted he did not see anyone “run past” or anyone wearing those clothes.
Police officers interviewed the witness at the time of the event and asked if he had seen the individual matching Dominguez’s description. The witness described the appearance of the individual leaving the scene despite never having seen that person.
At some point before the stabbing, the witness said he chased someone he thought was Dominguez and saw an individual behind a PG&E building with a bike and wearing dark clothing. The witness believed this took place about 10 minutes before the stabbing.
DPD Hutchinson asked for clarification on whether this event was the same one reportedly occurring several hours before the stabbing. The witness confirmed to Hutchinson that the pursuit happened hours before the stabbing rather than minutes. This concluded the witness’s testimony.
Witness testimony will resume Friday, May 30.
