WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County Superior Court judge Thursday postponed a decision on bail and pretrial release for an accused man charged in connection with the 2025 Esparto fireworks warehouse explosion that killed seven workers.
A motion hearing in Yolo County Superior Court addressed two opposing motions regarding the pretrial release of an accused person who was charged for his role in the 2025 Esparto fireworks warehouse explosion.
Indicted on April 3, 2026, the accused faces 18 charges, including seven counts of murder, four counts of felony possession and three counts of felony conspiracy. The deputy district attorney alleges that the accused played a major role in the illegal operations conducted behind the scenes of Devastating Pyrotechnics, the company that operated out of the Esparto warehouse.
The explosion killed seven workers.
The hearing addressed one motion filed by the deputy district attorney 10 days after the accused’s indictment, a supplemental declaration to deny bail or pretrial release, alongside an opposing motion submitted by the deputy public defender two days ago in support of pretrial release.
In the deputy district attorney’s 10-page supplemental declaration to deny bail or pretrial release, a significant focus is on the accused’s conduct directly after the July 1 explosion. Text messages on that same day between the accused and Kenneth Chee, the owner of Devastating Pyrotechnics, reveal discussion about restarting their fireworks business in Nevada.
When asked by Judge Daniel P. Maguire to respond to these concerns, Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson informed the court that 1.4G fireworks, such as Roman candles, aerial mortars and firecrackers, are legal in Nevada, unlike in California. He added that if granted pretrial release, a court order could prevent the accused from participating in any further fireworks business ventures.
Judge Maguire asked Johnson to address allegations in the deputy district attorney’s motion that the accused wore camouflage and a mask while changing locks at the warehouse on the night of the explosion.
Johnson stated that the accused was putting locks on doors that held fireworks batteries, not changing them, and was dressed that way because of the intense media attention at the time. He added that the locks were simple padlocks, not anything that would prove inaccessible to a warrant.
Judge Maguire then addressed Deputy District Attorney Deanna Hays, stating that Johnson required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by case law, to allege that the crime was a felony involving violence rather than an industrial accident.
Hays stated that the narrative in the defense motion wholly misunderstands the accused’s role in Devastating Pyrotechnics. She argued that he was not a client but an active participant in the procurement of nearly 1 million pounds of explosives kept at the warehouse. The accused had traveled overseas to purchase fireworks, sold deadly illegal explosives and stored those explosives in the Northern California warehouse.
In a previous April hearing, prosecutors alleged that an illegally overloaded explosive sold under one of the accused’s own fireworks brands, “For The Streets,” killed Jasmine Nguyen, an 8-year-old girl from Buena Park just days after the Esparto warehouse explosion.
Hays stated that an industrial accident caused by human error may explain a finger being blown off or another minor accident, but it does not explain seven deaths. She stated that in the days leading up to July 4, workers at the warehouse were tasked with charging legitimate display fireworks while “sitting on bombs, surrounded by explosives.”
The deputy district attorney also stated that charging fireworks is intended to be done at the explosion site and alleged that the accused and his co-defendants were “cutting corners” by doing so at the warehouse. Rather than being a workplace industrial accident, she alleged the event was workplace homicide.
Judge Maguire acknowledged the deputy district attorney’s request for no bail but also considered less restrictive conditions, such as court orders.
Hays stated that the accused’s actions after the explosion, including discussions about reopening the fireworks business in Nevada, led to a warrant for the accused’s cellphone, where the majority of communications between the accused and his co-defendants allegedly occurred. However, she continued to push for more restrictive conditions, stating that the accused’s alleged 10 to 15 years of operating under the radar and producing purposefully overloaded illegal fireworks required more intervention than a warrant alone.
“If seven dead bodies don’t stop him from trying to run his business, a court order wouldn’t do anything,” Hays stated.
Johnson refuted opposing counsel’s “gross generalizations” about the accused’s involvement, stating the necessity of malicious intent for the murder charges to apply.
Johnson argued that because of what he characterized as weak charges, the accused has a greater motivation to appear in court and contest the case. Additionally, Johnson stated that the accused lacked significant funds to post bail.
He stated that supervised own recognizance release would adequately control the accused’s behavior because he would report to a probation officer, whereas assigning bail would fail to do so.
Hays countered that because the accused is from Sacramento County, not Yolo County, supervised own recognizance release would not sufficiently supervise the accused and that specially defined supervision would be necessary.
The deputy district attorney added that because much of the alleged business activity occurred through phones, the District Attorney’s Office would require access that has been blocked by motions from Johnson based on alleged attorney-client privilege. Ultimately, Hays said that if bail is granted, it should be no more than $1.5 million, the amount received by one co-defendant, and no less than $500,000, the amount received by another co-defendant.
Judge Maguire acknowledged concerns about the accused’s behavior on July 1, stating that his efforts to restart the business were “surprising and of concern.” However, he requested clarification and definitive facts regarding the legal liability the accused bears for the seven deaths.
Judge Maguire requested supplemental briefing from the District Attorney’s Office to determine whether the standard for legal liability had been met. The prosecution’s briefing is due June 12 at noon, and Johnson’s response is due June 16.
Ultimately, Judge Maguire reiterated his concern about the risks of releasing the accused but delayed a formal bail determination until after the briefing is filed.
The accused remains in custody without bail. His bail motion will be revisited June 18 in Yolo County Superior Court.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
