Yolo Judge Cites Third Racial Justice Act Violation in Dominguez Retrial

WOODLAND, Calif. — A Yolo County judge found prosecutors violated California’s Racial Justice Act during closing arguments in the Carlos Reales Dominguez retrial, ruling that the prosecution improperly connected his Salvadoran background, status as a first-generation college student and membership in a Filipino cultural fraternity to a series of purportedly poor choices leading to the 2023 Davis stabbings.

Yolo Superior Court Judge Samuel T. McAdam made the finding Wednesday before closing arguments resumed, concluding that Deputy District Attorney Alex Kian had exceeded the permissible use of evidence concerning Dominguez’s marijuana consumption.

The ruling marked the prosecution’s third Racial Justice Act violation in the case, according to McAdam. The two previous violations involved peremptory challenges against prospective jurors who were Black and Hispanic.

California’s Racial Justice Act prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The law reaches not only explicit expressions of racial bias but also arguments or conduct that implicitly invoke racial or ethnic stereotypes.

Kian began his closing argument Tuesday by describing what he characterized as a series of poor decisions that “led to where he is today,” referring to Dominguez’s prosecution for two killings and a third stabbing in Davis during the spring of 2023.

Dominguez, 23, is charged with two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder in the deaths of David Breaux and UC Davis student Karim Abou Najm and the critical wounding of Kimberlee Guillory.

Kian told jurors that Dominguez’s decision to join a fraternity during his freshman year at UC Davis “was the first bad choice that he made.” He argued that the fraternity prioritized marijuana use over academics.

“Specifically marijuana use,” Kian said. “It’s not my place to tell you whether that’s good or bad.”

The fraternity was described during trial testimony as Filipino-based, although its membership was open to people from other cultural backgrounds.

Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson objected to the prosecution’s characterization, arguing that Kian had improperly disparaged the fraternity and its members while inviting jurors to view Dominguez’s cultural associations negatively.

Hutchinson also challenged Kian’s references to Dominguez having been born in El Salvador, learning English as a second language and becoming a first-generation college student.

According to Hutchinson, Kian presented those aspects of Dominguez’s life as “shortcomings” for which he required “guidance.”

The argument “plants a negative judgment grounded in assumptions about my client’s ethnicity and national origin,” Hutchinson told the court before closing arguments resumed Wednesday.

Kian denied that his remarks violated the Racial Justice Act. He argued that he had not used the word “Filipino” during his closing statement and said the details concerning Dominguez’s personal background were factually accurate.

McAdam rejected that defense.

The judge concluded that Kian had used evidence concerning marijuana consumption for a purpose beyond the limited reason the evidence had been admitted. The prosecution was permitted to present cannabis evidence to address Dominguez’s mental state at the time of the stabbings, not to attack the character of fraternity members or portray membership in a cultural organization as evidence of moral decline.

“It would appear to the court you used cannabis to impugn the character of the fraternity members,” McAdam said.

McAdam said the court had already instructed jurors to avoid allowing bias to influence their deliberations.

“To come in and say that a Filipino cultural fraternity prioritized cannabis over academics is impermissible on the face of it,” McAdam said.

The ruling clarified that a prosecutor does not have to expressly name an ethnic group or use an overt racial epithet for an argument to violate the Racial Justice Act. The court evaluated the meaning and implication of Kian’s remarks in context, including the prosecutor’s portrayal of Dominguez’s background and cultural associations as part of a progression of bad choices.

After calling jurors back into the courtroom, McAdam told them that Kian’s arguments concerning the fraternity members’ marijuana use and Dominguez’s personal background had been stricken.

“You are not to give it any weight; you are not allowed to discuss it during your deliberations,” McAdam said.

The judge also reminded jurors that evidence of marijuana consumption could be considered only for the limited purpose of determining Dominguez’s mental state at the time of the stabbings. It could not be used to evaluate the character or credibility of fraternity members or other witnesses.

McAdam additionally criticized prosecutors for failing to provide a proposed limiting instruction addressing the cannabis evidence, despite the court requesting one “at least five times.”

The omission was significant because cannabis use has become central to the prosecution’s theory in Dominguez’s second trial.

The defense does not dispute that Dominguez committed the stabbings. Instead, Hutchinson contends that Dominguez was suffering from untreated schizophrenia and experiencing hallucinations and delusions that profoundly distorted his perception of reality.

Dominguez has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Hutchinson conceded during his opening statement that the jury should convict Dominguez of involuntary manslaughter, rather than murder.

Prosecutors argue that Dominguez experienced cannabis-induced psychosis caused by near-daily consumption of high-potency marijuana. They maintain that his conduct during the attacks demonstrated planning, awareness and “goal-directed behaviors” inconsistent with the defense portrayal of a person whose actions were controlled by schizophrenia.

That theory differs from the prosecution’s position during Dominguez’s first trial.

Prosecutors previously argued that Dominguez premeditated the stabbings and acted out in anger after a series of personal setbacks, including a romantic breakup, academic failures and his expulsion from UC Davis.

The first jury acquitted Dominguez of first-degree murder but could not reach verdicts on second-degree murder and attempted murder. The deadlock resulted in a mistrial, leaving prosecutors free to retry the unresolved lesser charges but preventing them from again seeking first-degree murder convictions.

In the retrial, the prosecution has placed increased emphasis on Dominguez’s marijuana consumption and his ability to make decisions before, during and after the stabbings.

Kian’s closing argument attempted to place that evidence within a broader narrative of voluntary choices. But McAdam found that the prosecution crossed the line when it characterized joining the fraternity as Dominguez’s first bad decision and tied the organization’s cultural identity to marijuana use and academic neglect.

The ruling is particularly notable because it followed two earlier Racial Justice Act violations during jury selection.

Those violations involved the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges against one Black prospective juror and one Hispanic prospective juror. McAdam said those violations were later remedied.

Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to excuse a limited number of prospective jurors without stating the type of legal cause required to remove a juror for demonstrated bias. Prosecutors may not, however, use such challenges because of a prospective juror’s race, ethnicity or other protected status.

McAdam’s reference to the closing-argument episode as the prosecution’s third Racial Justice Act violation places the latest finding within a broader pattern of concerns that arose during the trial, rather than treating Kian’s statement as an isolated evidentiary error.

The immediate remedy was a curative instruction directing jurors to disregard and refrain from discussing the challenged remarks.

Whether the violation becomes an issue in post-trial litigation could depend on the eventual verdict, the complete record of the three violations and whether the defense contends the court’s remedial measures were insufficient to eliminate the effects of the improper arguments.

A conviction would move the proceedings into a separate sanity phase.

During that phase, jurors would hear additional testimony from mental health experts concerning whether Dominguez understood the nature of his actions and whether he was capable of recognizing that his conduct was legally or morally wrong.

Multiple experts have diagnosed Dominguez with schizophrenia and concluded that he was legally insane at the time of the attacks. Prosecutors dispute that conclusion and contend that heavy marijuana use caused or substantially contributed to his psychosis.

The Racial Justice Act ruling does not determine whether Dominguez committed the charged acts, whether his psychosis was caused by schizophrenia or cannabis use, or whether he was legally insane. It limits the considerations prosecutors may ask jurors to use in resolving those questions.

McAdam’s ruling establishes that Dominguez’s national origin, experience learning English, status as a first-generation college student and association with a Filipino cultural fraternity may not be turned into evidence of defective character or used to support an inference that those aspects of his identity placed him on a path toward violence.

Closing arguments resumed Wednesday following the judge’s instruction.

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.

Categories:

Tags: