On Thursday, December 18, 2025, The Davis Enterprise reported that the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office is seeking to disqualify Yolo Superior Court Judge Samuel McAdam from presiding over the second trial of Carlos Reales Dominguez, who is accused of a series of stabbings in Davis during the spring of 2023. The DA’s office alleges that Judge McAdam has repeatedly demonstrated bias against the prosecution.

The motion to disqualify McAdam was acknowledged during a brief court hearing. McAdam has scheduled a future court date for January 22 to set a new trial date, contingent on the resolution of the disqualification issue.

According to the Code of Civil Procedure 170.3, McAdam has 10 calendar days to either consent to recusal or file a verified answer to the motion, either admitting or denying the allegations of bias. If McAdam chooses not to disqualify himself, the California Judicial Council will appoint another judge to decide on the matter. McAdam also has the option to strike the motion if he deems it untimely, a decision that the DA’s Office could then appeal.

Dominguez, a 23-year-old former UC Davis student, faces charges related to the stabbings of David Breaux and Karim Abou Najm, both of whom died, as well as Kimberlee Guillory, who survived. Dominguez has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, supported by the conclusions of two court-appointed mental health experts who believe he was experiencing psychosis due to untreated schizophrenia at the time of the incidents.

Dominguez’s first trial ended in a mistrial earlier this year. The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but could not reach unanimous verdicts on the remaining charges, including second-degree murder and attempted murder. The second trial, initially scheduled for January, has been delayed due to a medical issue involving a prosecutor’s relative. The case may now be heard by a different judge, depending on the outcome of the disqualification motion.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Melinda Aiello argues in her motion that McAdam has hindered the prosecution’s case by excluding or criticizing evidence, limiting the cross-examination of court-appointed experts, denying requests for trial delays, and allegedly chastising prosecutors during sidebar discussions within earshot of jurors and courtroom spectators.

Aiello emphasized the seriousness of the charges, highlighting the “brutal murder of two innocent individuals and the attempted murder of a third individual.” She stated that the DA’s office had given every benefit of the doubt, but the cumulative effect of Judge McAdam’s conduct demonstrated a clear and unmistakable bias. She respectfully requested that Judge McAdam be disqualified from the case and that it be reassigned to an impartial judge.

Dominguez’s public defender, Dan Hutchinson, declined to comment on the motion.

The motion references a Nov. 20 court hearing where McAdam denied the prosecution’s request for a third court-appointed mental health expert to evaluate Dominguez under the theory that he committed the stabbings while experiencing cannabis-induced psychosis. McAdam agreed with Hutchinson’s argument that the request was untimely, stating that the DA’s Office was “on notice” they needed an expert when the defense initially raised concerns about Dominguez’s mental competency to stand trial.

McAdam stated that the case was not a “whodunit” but rather concerned Dominguez’s state of mind, which would be the central issue in the adjudication. He also noted that the two court-appointed experts were neutral, subject to thorough cross-examination, and had considered and rejected a diagnosis of cannabis-induced psychosis. A third expert retained by the defense reached the same conclusion.

Aiello’s motion argues that McAdam’s comments amounted to “embroiling himself in the case.” She expressed shock at how blatant and obvious the judge was in expressing his disagreement with their approach to the first trial, vouching for the court-appointed and defense experts, questioning their trial strategies, and expressing concern about the upcoming trial date.

 

 

Source: The Davis Enterprise