WOODLAND, CA – Judge Samuel T. McAdam continued to preside Monday over the murder trial of Carlos Dominguez in Yolo County Superior Court, as he met with Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson and Deputy District Attorney Matthew P. De Moura to discuss technical aspects of the trial occurring outside the jury’s presence.
Judge McAdam noted that the next phase of the trial—following jury deliberations—would address Dominguez’s sanity, as he is pursuing an insanity defense. In this phase, the burden of proof would shift to the defense, which must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, the judge said.
DPD Hutchinson said the defense plans to call three expert witnesses—Dr. Weiner, Dr. Vinson, and Dr. Rhee—to testify regarding Dominguez’s mental state. Hutchinson and Judge McAdam discussed scheduling the witnesses for the second phase of the trial, which is expected to begin next week.
DDA De Moura said the prosecution plans to call five of Dominguez’s former roommates to testify about his marijuana use. He also intends to call a criminologist who tested Dominguez’s blood and found it positive for marijuana, along with the lead detective on the case.
While Hutchinson questioned the relevance of the drug evidence—pointing out that marijuana can remain detectable for up to 30 days—he ultimately did not object.
De Moura argued that Dominguez’s “heavy and regular” marijuana use is relevant to his conduct. But Hutchinson countered that the defense is unaware of any witnesses who can testify that Dominguez used marijuana “shortly before the offense.” As such, Hutchinson argued, regular use may not be relevant.
Judge McAdam said the marijuana evidence would be “highly prejudicial” unless it could be directly connected to the offenses in question. “This issue needs to be sorted out more,” he said.
The defense also requested that an unedited version of Dominguez’s interrogation video be shown during the second phase of the trial. Hutchinson said the edited version, which censors the interrogating officer’s face, prevents him from questioning the officer’s credibility.
DDA De Moura said the officer’s face was obscured due to safety concerns, as the officer conducts undercover work. He suggested that the jury could be given a sealed copy of the uncensored video for review or that the audio could be played in court instead.
Hutchinson insisted the officer’s face must be visible in court and subject to examination by the defense. He argued that while any officer could have conducted the interrogation, the department chose to assign one who does undercover work—meaning the officer must now face the consequences of that decision.
The trial is scheduled to resume this afternoon at 1:30 p.m.
