WOODLAND, Calif. — A Davis police sergeant acknowledged Tuesday in Yolo County Superior Court that a police report prepared following Carlos Reales Dominguez’s 2023 arrest may have been inaccurate and misleading, as defense attorneys continued challenging the reliability of the investigation during Dominguez’s felony murder retrial.
Sgt. Mathew Muscardini of the Davis Police Department testified before Yolo County Superior Court Judge Samuel T. McAdam in Dominguez’s felony murder retrial.
Dominguez, a former UC Davis student, is charged with two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder in connection with the April 2023 Davis stabbings. His initial trial ended in a mistrial after jurors acquitted him of first-degree murder but were unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges.
Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson continued questioning Sgt. Mathew Muscardini on Tuesday, showing the court footage of Muscardini questioning Dominguez following his 2023 arrest.
The footage begins with Sgt. Muscardini asking Dominguez, “Do you know the difference between right and wrong?” Dominguez replied, “Not fully.”
Sgt. Muscardini followed by asking Dominguez whether he could identify something that is defined as wrong. Dominguez replied, “Something not good.”
Muscardini then asked Dominguez whether it “was wrong to kill someone?” Dominguez responded, “Yeah.”
DPD Hutchinson paused the footage and asked Sgt. Muscardini whether he had knowledge of schizophrenia. Muscardini said he was familiar with schizophrenia but was not familiar with its symptoms. He also said he was aware that mental illness can be genetic.
When asked whether he believed Dominguez had a mental illness, Muscardini replied, “Yes.”
Hutchinson also inquired about Muscardini’s interrogation of Dominguez and asked whether Dominguez had asked him any questions during the interrogation.
Muscardini said the only question Dominguez asked was what time it was because he had a test he needed to take for school.
Muscardini also said fellow detective Sgt. Stephen Ramos told him that when Ramos questioned Dominguez, Dominguez had essentially confessed to stabbing the victims. Footage shown afterward depicted Sgt. Muscardini attempting to obtain a confession by asking Dominguez to repeat what he had allegedly told Ramos.
In the footage, Muscardini pointed to a picture of one of the victims and asked Dominguez, “How many times did you stab him?” Dominguez responded, “I didn’t,” contradicting what Sgt. Muscardini said his partner had previously told him.
Following the footage, DPD Hutchinson presented the court with a police report written by Sgt. Stephen Ramos detailing that Dominguez allegedly said he had stabbed the first victim about 40 times and the second victim “a lot of times.” The report also states that Dominguez told police his knife was “special to him” and that “it felt like a part of him.”
Hutchinson then asked Sgt. Muscardini, “In your opinion, is it accurate?” in reference to the police report. Muscardini replied, “No, not really,” adding that Dominguez did not make those admissions to him.
When Hutchinson asked whether, “In your opinion, is [the report] misleading?” Sgt. Muscardini replied, “Yes.”
During the prosecution’s cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Alex Kian began by asking Muscardini about the length of the interrogation. Muscardini stated it was the longest interrogation of his career, lasting seven hours.
When asked about police interrogation tactics, Muscardini said investigators will often tell a person suspected of a crime that the victim has died or that DNA evidence exists to observe how the individual reacts. He explained that he used prior information about the stabbings to evaluate how Dominguez would respond during the interrogation.
Muscardini said he was under the impression during the questioning that Dominguez did not understand many of the questions.
DDA Kian then asked whether there was a difference between how innocent and guilty people react during questioning, to which Muscardini replied, “Sometimes.”
Kian went on to ask Muscardini, “Did you believe Dominguez to be involved?” Muscardini replied, “Yes.”
DDA Kian then shifted his questioning to the third victim in the stabbings.
Muscardini had his body camera activated while he questioned the third stabbing victim as she was being treated in an intensive care unit at UC Davis Medical Center.
The prosecution then played footage of Muscardini’s interview, during which the victim recalled the attack that occurred while she was in her tent at a Davis homeless encampment.
Following Sgt. Muscardini’s testimony, the court admitted testimony from last year’s mistrial from a witness who had become unavailable for the current trial.
The testimony came from a witness who lived alongside the third stabbing victim in a homeless encampment when the stabbing occurred in 2023.
In the testimony, the witness recalled sitting in a tent when a commotion and a woman’s scream were heard nearby. Upon exiting the tent, the witness saw blood and the stab wound on the victim’s back as the victim used a phone to call 911.
The witness initially told police investigators that someone wearing Adidas track pants had been seen, but when questioned by DPD Hutchinson, the witness said he did not personally see anyone. Instead, he testified that others in the encampment told him someone wearing Adidas track pants had been seen following the attack.
The third witness called by the defense was Shanna Bly, chief investigator for the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office.
Bly testified that she is one of two investigators working on the Dominguez case alongside Sonya Rocha of the Yolo County Public Defender’s Office.
Bly recalled that in June 2023 she, DPD Hutchinson and fellow investigator Sonya Rocha met with Dominguez at the jail.
Bly recalled that Dominguez had a very stiff posture and gait and appeared “malodorous,” with visibly poor hygiene and disheveled hair.
When asked whether she recalled anything else about his appearance, Bly stated that Dominguez’s “lips were extremely chapped with bits of dry skin hanging off them.”
Bly also said Dominguez was very guarded and quiet, although he asked whether he could have a laptop because he was concerned about falling behind in his classes.
Bly said that when Dominguez was informed he was no longer enrolled at UC Davis, he asked whether he could call the university to inquire about his status.
DPD Hutchinson also asked Bly about a trip they took to Sycamore Park in Davis on May 13, 2024, the location of the second stabbing.
Bly stated that she and Hutchinson searched for a carved tree. Hutchinson then displayed photographs of the carving, and Bly testified that it resembled a face, pointing out what she described as the eyes, nose and mouth.
Hutchinson also asked Bly about efforts to contact Dominguez’s family members to testify as witnesses during the trial.
Bly stated that she was able to subpoena Dominguez’s family members only with the assistance of the San Joaquin County Public Defender’s Office.
Bly also testified that she weighed Dominguez on May 18, 2026, and that he weighed approximately 170 pounds.
The retrial is scheduled to resume Wednesday, July 8, before Judge McAdam 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.
