Morning: Deputy DA Begins Closing Argument in Dominguez Trial after Judge Finds Prosecutorial Misconduct
WOODLAND, CA – On Friday morning, Judge Samuel T. McAdam resumed the trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez, finding that Deputy District Attorney Frits Van Der Hoek had committed prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination. As a result, the judge dismissed certain exhibits. Deputy District Attorney Matthew P. De Moura then began the prosecution’s closing argument.
Dominguez is charged with two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, with enhancements for the use of a deadly weapon and a prior felony conviction. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Expert testimony from earlier established that Dominguez has schizophrenia. The defense contends he was experiencing hallucinatory episodes at the time of the alleged crimes. Judge McAdam reminded the court that the prosecution bears the burden of proving Dominguez’s intent to commit the offenses.
Before closing arguments began, Judge McAdam instructed attorneys to refrain from referring to one another by name, seeking to avoid the personal attacks that had surfaced in earlier proceedings. “This case is about finding justice, not about the attorneys,” he stated.
The judge found that Deputy DA Van Der Hoek had misled the jury by referencing blood on Dominguez’s computer—a claim that contradicted his own earlier statement acknowledging there was none. Judge McAdam ordered the jury to disregard those questions.
Before De Moura began his summation, the judge provided jurors with general instructions on the legal standards they must use to deliberate, including definitions of key terms. He also clarified that although Dominguez has entered an insanity plea, the jury will not decide on that issue during this phase. Instead, their task is to determine whether the alleged acts were committed with intent.
De Moura opened the prosecution’s closing by stating, “The victims were ambushed and stabbed in one of the most cold and calculated ways you could imagine.”
“All of these attacks were committed by one person—Carlos Reales Dominguez,” he continued. “Carlos may have schizophrenia, but he is still able to premeditate and have intent.”
De Moura argued that the nature of the stabbings showed clear deliberation. “He saw them, perceived them, and stabbed them—not once, not twice, but multiple times.” He emphasized that Dominguez would have felt the physical presence of his victims as he attacked them, experienced their resistance, and still persisted. “You would have to be hell-bent,” he said, “to follow through with that kind of violence.”
He then presented evidence that, according to him, demonstrated Dominguez’s premeditation: a cache of knife images on his phone, Amazon purchase records showing searches for combat and hunting knives—not kitchen or pocket knives—and the discovery of a knife sheath just feet away from the bench where David Breaux was stabbed. De Moura also pointed to Dominguez stepping in front of cyclist Karim Abou Najum to intentionally cause a collision.
He argued that, while Dominguez has schizophrenia, that diagnosis does not preclude the ability to make decisions. “Having schizophrenia and the ability to deliberate are not mutually exclusive,” De Moura said, noting that Dominguez had been able to function in society.
As he transitioned to applying the facts to the law, De Moura said Dominguez acted with malice aforethought, a necessary element for a murder conviction. He emphasized the brutality of the attacks: Breaux was stabbed 31 times, and Najum 52 times—injuries that included a broken clavicle and ribs, requiring significant force even for someone with declining physical health.
De Moura also highlighted Dominguez’s use of the word “dude” during his own testimony, arguing that it showed Dominguez recognized his victim as a person. He suggested that the moment of impact—when Najum collided with Dominguez—gave the accused time to reflect before acting.
“Schizophrenia doesn’t mean you don’t understand,” De Moura said. “Dominguez understood. He had time to reflect.”
De Moura is expected to continue his closing argument in the afternoon. Defense attorney Robert Hutchinson will then deliver the defense’s closing statement.
Afternoon: Closing Arguments in Carlos Dominguez Trial
The prosecution and defense concluded their closing arguments Friday afternoon in the trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez, a former UC Davis student diagnosed with schizophrenia who is accused of murdering two men and attempting to murder a woman. The final arguments followed testimony from Dr. Weiner, who spoke to the defendant’s mental state the previous day.
Deputy District Attorney Matthew De Moura began the afternoon session by reviewing the charges against Dominguez. He explained the distinctions between first- and second-degree murder, the associated enhancements, and the alternative charge of involuntary manslaughter in plain terms for the jury.
DDA De Moura focused on Count Three, the attempted murder of Kimberlee Guillory, outlining the two legal elements: a direct but ineffective act toward killing the victim and the intent to kill. Emphasizing intent, De Moura argued that Dominguez had to walk to Guillory’s tent, assess the situation, carry the knife in a manner that avoided self-injury, and then stab her twice in the lower and mid-back—actions requiring lucidity and intent.
The prosecution also sought to highlight inconsistencies in Dominguez’s testimony. DDA De Moura pointed to a “punching” motion Dominguez demonstrated on the stand, which, he argued, was inconsistent with the physical evidence showing a slashed tent.
De Moura further asserted that Dominguez fleeing the scene after each stabbing—including the attempted killing of Guillory—demonstrated a consciousness of guilt. He noted that Dominguez even waited to fix his bike chain until he believed he was “not in plain view,” minutes after fleeing one of the scenes.
Concluding his remarks, De Moura challenged Dominguez’s credibility as a witness, stating the defendant frequently responded with “I don’t know” and urged jurors to assess whether they believed Dominguez was being truthful.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson opened his two-hour closing argument by calling the case “probably the most serious and high-profile case in Yolo County” and stressed that it demanded that jurors “follow the law even when it is difficult.” He criticized the prosecution’s performance, calling it “juvenile hour,” suggesting that even high school mock trial teams would be embarrassed by their approach.
Hutchinson reiterated the legal standards, reminding jurors that attorneys’ statements are not evidence, regardless of how often or dramatically they are repeated. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, arguing that if circumstantial evidence only leaves room for uncertainty, the jury must return a not guilty verdict.
He acknowledged that the physical acts in the case were not in dispute. Instead, the central question was whether Dominguez had the specific intent to kill—defined legally as malice aforethought—or if he acted under a delusional mental state. Hutchinson argued that Dominguez believed he was attacking shadowy figures, not real people.
The defense urged jurors to consider the impact of Dominguez’s schizophrenia on his ability to perceive, evaluate, and recall events. Hutchinson pointed to testimony from three doctors—Dr. Weiner, Dr. Vinson, and Dr. Rhee—all of whom agreed that Dominguez was in a state of florid psychosis at the time of the alleged offenses. He criticized the prosecution for not presenting a psychiatric expert of their own and for attempting to dismiss Dominguez’s mental illness while simultaneously acknowledging his diagnosis.
Comparing the prosecution’s logic to asking a paraplegic to stand, Hutchinson said it was inconsistent to recognize the presence of schizophrenia while denying its influence on the defendant’s behavior. “This is a broken mind,” he repeated.
Hutchinson pushed back on the prosecution’s repeated focus on the number of stab wounds, arguing that a person of sound mind would not continue to stab someone already dead. He said such actions supported, rather than undermined, the case for mental illness.
The defense then detailed 22 alleged falsehoods in the prosecution’s case. Among them: the prosecution’s opening statement omitted Dominguez’s schizophrenia and instead blamed school stressors, a breakup, finals, and housing insecurity. Hutchinson also criticized the prosecution’s cross-examinations of expert witnesses as “incoherent.”
Contrary to the prosecution’s claim that Dominguez’s residence showed no signs of blood, Hutchinson noted that their own exhibits showed blood on his computer, clothing, and in a hamper. He said the state later dropped the theory without acknowledging this evidence. Similarly, he challenged the prosecution’s assertion that the knife used in the killings was clean, pointing out that their only witness on that point, Heather Tomchick, admitted she lacked the qualifications to make such a determination.
He also discredited the testimony of prosecution witness Jose Anaya, an unhoused man who claimed to see Dominguez fleeing in a gray shirt. Police bodycam footage placed Anaya elsewhere at the time—at a car wash three blocks away with his girlfriend—and Dominguez was in a black hoodie, not a gray shirt. Hutchinson also reminded jurors that Anaya had pending criminal charges.
Hutchinson cast doubt on Guillory’s identification of Dominguez, noting that she had previously described the attacker as a “white guy with blonde curly hair” and told the prosecution she was unsure about recognizing his face.
He highlighted newly-discovered CAD (computer-aided dispatch) log evidence that corroborated most of Dominguez’s account to police. The only inconsistency, Hutchinson said, was a mistaken last name—Dominguez said “Joas,” while the log recorded “Joseph”—which he attributed to officer error.
Hutchinson criticized the choice to assign Officer Steve Ramos, recently demoted, to a lead role in the investigation and said Ramos negatively influenced Detective Muscardini, who admitted Dominguez was not read his Miranda rights, contrary to other officers’ testimony.
Hutchinson also denied the claim that Dominguez began his alleged killing spree after being expelled from UC Davis, arguing instead that he had still been attending meetings and scheduling appointments with advisors.
In a personal critique, Hutchinson blamed Dominguez’s parents for sending him from El Salvador to the U.S. via a coyote, despite his living well with his grandmother at the time.
He dismissed the prosecution’s mention of 500 cached knife images as irrelevant, noting that scrolling online could create such caches. He also brushed aside the poem/song about knives and the use of the word “dude” during testimony as either irrelevant or misinterpreted within the context of Dominguez’s schizophrenia.
Revisiting the evidence about Guillory’s tent, Hutchinson pointed to the tissue-sized hole as consistent with Dominguez’s testimony, again arguing that the physical evidence supported his version of events.
He closed his argument with a video from Dominguez’s high school years showing him smiling and laughing with friends in a YouTube vlog. “That young man will never come back,” Hutchinson said.
In rebuttal, DDA De Moura insisted two key facts had been omitted by the defense: that Dominguez, not schizophrenia, killed the two men, and that the defense’s framing stigmatized others with schizophrenia as inherently violent—when they are not.
Responding to the name discrepancy, De Moura argued that Dominguez used “John Joas” because it had worked before and he was trying to avoid consequences by misleading police.
Following closing arguments, Judge McAdam issued final instructions to the jury, and deliberations began.
