WOODLAND, CA – The trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez proceeded Wednesday at Yolo County Superior Court, with Judge Samuel T. McAdam presiding over the evidentiary phase of the case. Dominguez is charged with two counts of murder, three enhancements for use of a deadly weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, a special circumstance allegation for multiple murders, and a prior felony conviction. He remains in custody without bail.
The day’s hearings were divided between morning and afternoon sessions, featuring multiple witnesses whose testimonies were closely examined by Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson and Deputy District Attorneys Matt De Moura and Frits Van Der Hoek. Much of the proceedings focused on the reliability of witness statements, digital and forensic evidence, and inconsistencies in memory recall.
MORNING SESSION: EYEWITNESS RELIABILITY and TRAUMA RESPONSE
The morning session included further questioning of two civilian witnesses. The first was a local doctor who lived near the scene of one of the attacks. He testified that he heard cries for help late at night and initially thought the incident involved a bicycle accident, as it occurred on a nearby bike path. Looking over his backyard fence, he saw an individual fleeing the scene after appearing to pick something up from the ground. The doctor pursued the suspect briefly—getting within about 10 feet—before returning to assist the victim and call 911.
The court played a snippet of the 911 call, highlighting that the doctor was focused on initiating CPR rather than describing the fleeing individual. When emergency medical personnel arrived, the witness recalled needing to guide them through the chaotic scene, though he believed the victim had already died by that time.
During cross-examination, DPD Hutchinson raised questions about inconsistencies in the doctor’s multiple statements: one at the scene, another during a follow-up interview in his home, and a written account he submitted months later. The defense emphasized the possibility of memory distortion due to trauma, especially as the witness had only seen part of the suspect’s face and was uncertain about identifying features such as clothing. At the time he assisted law enforcement, the witness stated he was only about 70% confident in his identification.
The second witness, a man who was unhoused and lived near one of the victims, was questioned about what he saw and heard on the night of the incident. There was confusion in his account about whether he personally witnessed the suspect or was relaying what others told him. The witness admitted to daily marijuana use and had previously struggled with methamphetamine addiction. He was unable to testify earlier in the week due to being under the influence.
Despite these factors, the witness asserted that it was “common sense” that the individual seen earlier that night was the same person involved in the attack. Under cross-examination, however, he gave conflicting details about the accused’s location and appearance.
Afternoon Session: Forensic Pathology and Survivor Testimony
The court reconvened at 1:30 p.m., beginning with testimony from forensic pathologist Dr. Jiemin Zhou, who performed the autopsy of victim David Breaux. Called by DDA Van Der Hoek, Dr. Zhou testified that Breaux sustained 31 sharp force injuries—all similar in width and depth—consistent with having been attacked while sleeping on a bench. When shown a replica of the knife allegedly used by Dominguez, Dr. Zhou confirmed the wounds were consistent with its design.
Next, DDA De Moura called Kimberlee Guillory, the sole survivor of the attacks, to testify. Guillory, who was unhoused at the time, described the events of May 1, 2023. She stated she was in her tent using her phone when someone slashed through the tent wall and began stabbing her.
“Somebody came up behind me and they came down with a knife… they cut through the tent,” Guillory said. “I didn’t know who they were or why they were stabbing me.”
She recalled screaming for help and seeing two others from her group, Isaac Cheeseman and Larry Pilot, intervene and struggle with the attacker. Guillory testified that during the scuffle, she saw the assailant’s face and identified him as Dominguez. When asked if she had viewed photos of Dominguez since the attack, she said she had not. She identified Dominguez in the courtroom, stating, “He looked angry.”
During cross-examination, DPD Hutchinson challenged Guillory’s recollection. He asked whether her identification was influenced by what others told her. Guillory replied that her recognition of Dominguez was based on her own experience. She described him as having long, curly hair.
Hutchinson pointed to prior statements Guillory made to police in which she said the assailant had blonde hair and that she had not seen the attacker’s face. Guillory responded that she could not recall making those statements and emphasized that the trauma and speed of the attack had blurred her memory.
“He looked straight at me, with this angry look… like he didn’t get to finish what he started,” Guillory maintained.
Hutchinson further questioned whether Guillory could have misinterpreted the altercation, suggesting she may have seen Larry and Isaac wrestling and misidentified one of them as the assailant. He also asked whether Guillory’s desire to see Dominguez sentenced to life in prison might have influenced her recollection.
Additional Forensic Testimony
Later in the afternoon, Officer Nicholas Peel of the Davis Police Department took the stand. He testified that he found a bicycle at the scene that appeared to have been hastily abandoned, as well as a water bottle nearby. Police Service Specialist Sheri Kolb followed, confirming that she found blood stains and fingerprints on both the bicycle and the bottle.
Kolb’s direct examination by DDA De Moura was still in progress when the court adjourned for the day. Her testimony is scheduled to resume on Thursday, May 8, at 9:00 a.m.
The trial is ongoing, with the defense emphasizing the potential fallibility of eyewitness testimony, especially under traumatic conditions, while the prosecution focuses on forensic consistency and survivor identification.
