Morning: Witness Testimonies Describe Dominguez’s Mental Stability
WOODLAND, CA – The trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez concluded its fourth week on Friday, May 30, with testimony from an investigative sergeant and a psychological expert. Dominguez faces two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and sentence enhancements for use of a deadly weapon.
The 20th day of trial began with Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson calling Sergeant Janell Bestpitch to the stand. Bestpitch, a Davis Police officer, has been present for much of the trial as an approved officer assistant to the prosecution.
Hutchinson began his questioning by asking Bestpitch about her role in the 2023 stabbings. Bestpitch testified she had served as an investigative sergeant, overseeing detectives and participating in investigative work herself.
She said the police department canvassed west of Sycamore Park, the site of the second stabbing, in an effort to gather additional evidence related to the suspect.
Hutchinson then questioned the placement of Detective Steve Ramos, who conducted the interview following Dominguez’s arrest. Bestpitch said she “didn’t know” who placed Ramos in charge. Hutchinson noted that Ramos had previously held the rank of sergeant but had been demoted.
Hutchinson presented a written report by Ramos following his interview with Dominguez. Bestpitch affirmed that such reports should be “true and accurate,” and that she was “relying on the word of Steve Ramos that this report was accurate.”
Hutchinson highlighted discrepancies between Ramos’s report and a previously viewed video of the interview. Ramos claimed Dominguez had said he had owned a knife for years, that it was “special to him,” and “a part of him.” However, in the interview recording, Dominguez had said that “walks” were important to him, not a knife. This was one of several inaccurate statements Hutchinson pointed out in Ramos’s summary.
Hutchinson also questioned Bestpitch about testimony by Detective Alex Torres, who previously testified that suspected blood was found on clothing seized from Dominguez’s residence but was never tested. Hutchinson pressed her on why the clothing was not used as evidence. Bestpitch appeared frustrated, stating, “There’s a point where we have to say we have enough [evidence].”
During cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Matt De Moura, Bestpitch testified that all available evidence pointed to Dominguez.
The defense next called Dr. Sirintip Rhee to the stand.
Dr. Rhee testified she is a forensic psychologist who earned her Psy.D. in 2015. She specializes in mental health evaluations and psychological testing, has conducted more than 300 court evaluations, and is recognized as an expert witness in three counties.
Judge Samuel T. McAdam approved Dr. Rhee as an expert witness in the case.
Appointed by the court to evaluate Dominguez’s mental state, Dr. Rhee reviewed evidence and testimony from both the prosecution and the defense and met with Dominguez on Dec. 11, 2024. By that time, Dominguez had been taking antipsychotic medication for one year and four months.
Dr. Rhee administered three psychological assessments. The first was the M-FAST, which screens for malingering (faking symptoms). A score of six or above indicates malingering. Dominguez scored one and had previously scored zero.
She also administered the B-Test, another tool for identifying malingering from a different perspective. Results again showed that Dominguez was not exaggerating or faking symptoms.
The third test was the MCMI-IV, which assesses mental health and personality traits. Dr. Rhee described Dominguez as “someone who likes to be disciplined and follow routines and rules… which can also be called perfectionism.”
Dr. Rhee testified that Dominguez did not exhibit active symptoms of schizophrenia at the time of their meeting, though he did display “residual symptoms” common even after treatment. She described his behavior: “He kept staring off… at times he looked like he was checked out… he was looking at something even though there was nothing there.”
Throughout the trial, Dominguez has maintained a blank, unmoving expression.
Dr. Rhee said Dominguez did not meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, stating she “believed he suffered from schizophrenia.”
She discussed the causes of schizophrenia, which can result from genetic or environmental factors. She noted that “immigration of being a refugee increases the risk for developing schizophrenia,” as do other forms of trauma.
Hutchinson asked whether Dominguez’s experience being left behind in El Salvador and smuggled across the border by “coyotes” would qualify as childhood trauma. Dr. Rhee said it would. He then asked whether childhood sexual abuse—which Dominguez reportedly experienced—would also constitute trauma. Dr. Rhee again affirmed.
She stated, “The younger a child is, the larger the negative impact [trauma] has.”
Tensions rose during Dr. Rhee’s testimony and at other points in the day. Judge McAdam admonished both sides, saying, “We need professionalism,” urging the attorneys to “pull it together.”
Court recessed for lunch and was scheduled to resume at 1:30 p.m.
Afternoon: Witnesses Highlight Florid Psychosis, Challenge Accuracy of Police Report
The trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez wrapped up proceedings for the week on Friday, May 30, with testimony from a psychological expert, a detective, and two Yolo County investigators.
Dominguez faces two felony counts of murder, one felony count of attempted murder, and multiple sentencing enhancements, including use of a deadly weapon, infliction of great bodily injury, multiple murders, and a prior felony conviction.
The afternoon began with Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson calling Dr. Sirintip Rhee, a forensic psychologist and expert in mental health evaluations and psychological testing, back to the stand.
Hutchinson opened by asking Dr. Rhee if witnessing parental violence and unsuccessfully attempting to intervene could be considered traumatic. Dr. Rhee affirmed.
He then turned to schizophrenia. Dr. Rhee testified that the disorder often severely impairs memory, making it difficult for individuals to distinguish between real and imagined events.
Hutchinson asked about florid psychosis and whether Dominguez exhibited symptoms in recorded interviews. Dr. Rhee testified that he showed signs of disorganized thoughts, abnormal behavior, and persistent delusions. She cited instances where Dominguez abruptly stood up and asked to return to school—despite having been expelled and being in custody—and noted that he sat in the interview room for hours without requesting food, water, or use of the restroom.
Hutchinson pointed to several factual inaccuracies from Dominguez’s interviews, including referring to his mother as “Varla” instead of “Carla,” giving the wrong address, misnaming a roommate, and providing a false name to officers and on a previously-submitted English paper. He asked whether these were signs of deliberate deception or disorganized thinking.
Dr. Rhee testified that these inconsistencies—along with Dominguez’s short yes/no answers and tendency to agree with officers only to contradict them later—were indicative of florid psychosis. She explained that this mental state may result in hallucinations, disordered thinking, and impaired reasoning.
During cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Frits Van Der Hoek challenged Dr. Rhee’s use of the word “alleged” in describing uncontested facts. Dr. Rhee responded that this was standard professional language and did not reflect personal doubt. The line of questioning was eventually cut off by a defense objection.
Van Der Hoek asked how Dr. Rhee accounted for stress related to incarceration in her diagnosis. She said it depends on the individual and their circumstances.
He repeatedly asked whether a person facing murder charges might have a motive to lie. Dr. Rhee acknowledged that might be the case if someone were trying to avoid responsibility, but added that a person feeling guilt or remorse might not be motivated to lie.
The prosecution asked whether Dominguez had reviewed case documents prior to their meeting. Dr. Rhee said it was possible, but that she had administered multiple tests to detect malingering (faking symptoms of mental illness).
Van Der Hoek questioned the reliability of those tests, given that Dominguez had completed an introductory psychology class, read the DSM-5, and written an academic paper comparing diagnostic approaches. Dr. Rhee testified that this level of exposure was insufficient to invalidate the test results.
Van Der Hoek challenged Dr. Rhee’s observation that Dominguez functioned with the cognitive capacity of a young child, noting that other experts had not said the same. Dr. Rhee clarified she was referring to his inability to comprehend key concepts, such as his expulsion from UC Davis, not his verbal presentation.
He briefly asked about her recollection of the interview videos, but this line of questioning was dropped.
Van Der Hoek then cited another psychologist’s opinion that reports should be written independently and asked if Dr. Rhee agreed. She said it is standard practice to review other psychologists’ reports.
Finally, he asked whether she confronted Dominguez about inconsistencies in his interview. She said she followed up with clarifying questions when inconsistencies arose.
On redirect, Hutchinson asked when Dr. Rhee submitted her report and whether she had reviewed other expert reports before doing so. She said her report was completed beforehand.
Hutchinson then asked whether the prosecution had requested that she review additional materials in full, noting such a request would cost $250 per hour.
He concluded by asking if, hypothetically, a second psychologist agreed Dominguez was experiencing florid psychosis, whether would that support her diagnosis. The prosecution objected, and the objection was sustained.
Next, the defense called a detective from the Davis Police Department to testify. Hutchinson asked whether a completely fabricated statement could end up in an official report. He questioned whether Dominguez had actually said that his knife was “special to him” or that he had Googled information the morning after the crime to remember what happened. The detective admitted Dominguez had not made those statements.
He further testified that the report he and Sergeant Steve Ramos wrote misrepresented what Dominguez said during the interview.
Hutchinson also asked whether anyone questioned Ramos being placed in charge of one of the most important cases in Davis in recent memory. The detective said no.
The defense then called investigators Shanna Bly and Sonya Rocha to the stand. Hutchinson questioned them about the locations of the stabbings and the surrounding terrain. The prosecution had no questions for either witness.
After their testimony, the jury was dismissed for the day. Judge Samuel T. McAdam then asked the defense whether Dominguez intended to testify and whether he understood he would be waiving his Fifth Amendment right. Both Hutchinson and Dominguez confirmed that he was aware.
The trial will resume Monday with Dominguez’s testimony.
