WOODLAND, CA – At a pretrial hearing Friday in Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Samuel T. McAdam ruled on several key motions ahead of the murder trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez. The court addressed issues including alleged Miranda rights violations, jury instructions on the insanity defense, and the admissibility of photographic evidence. Deputy District Attorneys Matthew De Moura and Frits Van Der Hoek appeared for the prosecution, while Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson represented the defense.
This update follows last week’s start of jury selection, during which the court reviewed hardship claims and began the process of selecting 12 jurors and 5 alternates. As of today, the jury has been finalized. You can read that earlier coverage here: Jury Selection Begins for Carlos Reales Dominguez Murder Trial.
Friday’s hearing addressed multiple motions raised by both sides.
The first issue, presented by Hutchinson, concerned a request for jury instructions prior to the guilt phase regarding the proper application of California’s insanity defense statute. He cited procedures established in People v. Mills as precedent. Judge McAdam agreed and confirmed that jurors will receive instructions on how to interpret the statute in line with established case law.
The second motion focused on the prosecution’s attempt to exclude certain photos of the defendant, which depict him with kittens. Van Der Hoek argued that the images—some reportedly taken two years ago—had “little probative value” and could improperly sway the jury. Hutchinson countered that the photos were more recent, taken during Dominguez’s freshman and sophomore years at UC Davis. He asserted that the images were relevant both for establishing Dominguez’s presence at a specific location and for showing behavioral changes over time.
Judge McAdam denied the prosecution’s motion, ruling that photographs taken after Dominguez turned 18 may be admitted, provided they are appropriately limited and directly support the defense’s argument.
The most contentious issue was the defense’s motion to suppress Dominguez’s statements to law enforcement, arguing that his Miranda rights had been violated. Hutchinson claimed officers used passive-aggressive language, detained Dominguez for an extended period, and subtly coerced him into going to the police station. He emphasized that when Dominguez asked, “Can I go home?” officers replied that he could—only if he accompanied them to the station.
Judge McAdam ultimately disagreed, stating, “He was not under the functional equivalent of an arrest.” While acknowledging that Dominguez was held for 45 minutes and surrounded by multiple officers, the judge noted that he was not placed in a patrol car, the tone of questioning was calm and professional, and Dominguez voluntarily agreed to accompany officers. He added that Dominguez was only handcuffed after a knife was discovered and that no confrontational questioning occurred beforehand. The motion to suppress was denied.
However, in light of Hutchinson’s concerns about potential inconsistencies in body camera footage—specifically the possibility that cameras were intermittently turned on and off—Judge McAdam granted the defense permission to question the officers involved to build a more complete record. The prosecution did not oppose the request.
Judge McAdam concluded the session by commending the defense on its strong advocacy while reiterating that law enforcement had acted reasonably during the initial contact.
The court is scheduled to reconvene on May 5 at 9:00 a.m., when officers will be cross-examined regarding body camera procedures and the initial detention. Media cameras will be present for the hearing.
Excellent work! This piece does a great job of making a complex legal hearing accessible and engaging. The attention to detail, especially in covering both sides of the arguments and the judge’s rationale, really stands out. It’s clear a lot of care went into reporting this. I’ll definitely be following your updates as the trial moves forward!