WOODLAND, Calif. — A new trial date has been set for Carlos Reales Dominguez, whose previous trial ended in a mistrial earlier this year. Yolo County Superior Court Judge Samuel McAdam confirmed the charges during a trial setting conference Wednesday and scheduled the new trial to begin Jan. 20, 2026.
Dominguez remains in custody facing two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, with enhancements for use of a deadly weapon and a prior felony conviction. The previous trial, which lasted ten weeks, ended with a hung jury that acquitted Dominguez of two counts of first-degree murder but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges.
Judge McAdam reviewed an amended charging document reflecting the revised charges following the hung jury. He clarified that Count I will now be a second-degree murder charge with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon.
“While the complaint doesn’t state it, involuntary manslaughter is the lesser included offense,” McAdam said, noting the jury had not reached that point in deliberation on Counts I and II, though the defense had conceded guilt on that charge.
Count II will also be simplified to a second-degree murder charge with a deadly weapon enhancement, mirroring Count I.
Count III remains attempted murder with enhancements for use of a deadly weapon and for premeditated attempted murder. Judge McAdam said the jury did not reach a verdict on this count and suggested the premeditation enhancement should be stricken.
“At least one of the multiple murders, in this case Count II, would have to be a first-degree murder in order to get the special circumstance that would seem to be stricken at this time,” McAdam said.
Deputy District Attorney Frits De Moura agreed with most of the amended charges but opposed removing the premeditation allegation on Count III. He argued the lack of a jury finding on that enhancement warranted a retrial for jurors to consider the charge again.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson said that while De Moura’s argument was legally sound, he agreed with the court’s proposed revisions. “There is no logical reason why they would find any differently to that count as they did two counts of murder,” Hutchinson said.
McAdam questioned the value of retrying a theory already rejected by the previous jury and asked De Moura whether he would consider dropping the premeditation allegation to streamline the case. De Moura declined, emphasizing the distinct factual nature of each count.
McAdam pressed further, asking whether the prosecution was preparing for another trial centered around the same themes of “anger, retaliation … is that what we’re looking at again because this is dangling on count III?”
De Moura acknowledged some overlap but maintained that it would be up to a new jury to evaluate the evidence and determine the outcome.
McAdam agreed to include the premeditation allegation on Count III in the amended complaint but noted it may be challenged in a pretrial motion.
The judge also addressed the prosecution’s motion to release exhibits for further evidence testing. De Moura said both sides had conferred before the hearing, leading McAdam to withdraw the motion without prejudice, allowing the parties to continue discussions.
McAdam ordered the amended complaint to be filed within 15 days and confirmed the trial for Jan. 20, 2026, at 9 a.m. in Department 14. Trial readiness conferences are set for Dec. 18, 2025, and Jan. 14, 2026, both at 1:30 p.m. A status conference will take place Oct. 16, 2025, also at 1:30 p.m.
Before adjourning, McAdam acknowledged the community resources devoted to the case and encouraged both sides to remain open to a resolution. He offered a confidential settlement conference with Judge Stephen Mock.
De Moura responded, “At this time I cannot say yes or no, but I won’t say no.”
McAdam declined to schedule the settlement conference immediately, allowing the parties time to confer privately.
