Alleged San Carlos killer’s fate with jury

Jose Rafael Solano Landaeta, 33, is charged with brutally killing Castro, the 27-year-old mother of his child, with a samurai sword on the streets of San Carlos in the middle of the day Sept. 8, 2022. Landaeta admitted hitting Castro with the sword in the neck area many times, nearly decapitating her, and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in May after doctors ruled him competent to stand trial. That was changed to the more traditional not guilty focusing on self-defense right before the trial was to begin. Insanity is a person’s mental state at the time of a crime while competency is a defendant’s ability to aid in their own defense.

The trial of has revolved primarily around motive and the possibility of self-defense.

Josh Stauffer, San Mateo County deputy district attorney, said during closing statements Nov. 17 the crime was vengeance-motivated first-degree murder. Landaeta’s defense attorney, Robert Cummings, maintains it was imperfect self-defense by a man with mental health issues and is asking the jury for an acquittal or, barring a finding of full innocence, a manslaughter charge.

Landaeta appeared in court for the second half of closing arguments Friday for the first time since Monday, Nov. 14, when he went non-responsive on the stand while being cross-examined by the prosecution and subsequently refused to attend the trial.

Stauffer pointed to several court-appointed forensic psychologists who said that Landaeta’s mental illness — he has previously been diagnosed with and hospitalized for schizophrenia — had “no genuine causal nexus” to the killing and he was not demonstrating psychosis symptoms after the killing or while in jail.

“This has nothing to do with mental illness. This is a domestic violence case,” he said.

Cummings maintained that his client was suffering from mental illness when he killed Castro, pointing to his recorded “episodes” of catatonia and aggression. Landaeta has a “sick mind” that doesn’t function like a rational person’s, Cummings said.

Cummings’ defense of his client also revolves around threatening Snapchat messages Castro sent Landaeta before the killing — first accusing him of rape and sexual encounters with men and minors before sending messages like “now I hope u get ur s— shut down and taken out,” “u got a target on ur back now too, haha I already got a green light,” “tell yo mom to plan a r f— service,” and that she would “handle” his mother.

“The defendant did believe he was protecting his life or the life of another,” he said, claiming that the combination of mental illness and threats against his life made him believe he was in imminent danger.

But Stauffer said it was clear the text messages Castro sent Landaeta did not make him fearful, but instead made him angry enough to kill her, pointing to texts he sent his friend after discovering she publicly posted her claims about him on Instagram — “im ngl bro she lookin ta get smoked,” “she need to get 86’d.”

“He wasn’t scared, he was angry,” Stauffer said.

Stauffer acknowledged that the texts sent by Castro were vitriolic and aggressive, but maintained Landaeta’s behavior and the method of the killing implied rage and vengeance, rather than fright.

“You may not like what the victim said to the defendant. You don’t have to,” he said. “This isn’t a popularity contest. No one deserved to die like she did.”

Another key element in Landaeta’s defense is the claim that Castro attempted to attack him with a knife before he killed her. A knife was not found at the crime scene, which Cummings said could be attributed to police not knowing where to look or the weapon getting flung during the altercation.

During closing arguments, he pointed to a thin scratch on the defendant’s hand that could be consistent with a knife cut, claiming that it was from her wielding the knife at Landaeta before he attacked.

Cummings also employed another piece of circumstantial evidence, a blood droplet that began before the larger blood trail, saying it was from the knife altercation. He reminded the jury that pieces of evidence like these needed to be considered when determining if the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

“Twenty years from now, will you still believe that a defense does not exist?” he said when asking jurors to consider these pieces of evidence that left “holes” in the prosecution’s story.

The District Attorney’s Office has maintained that Landaeta is lying about the knife, which, alongside his claim of self-defense, doesn’t exist.

“There was no knife there. None of the witnesses saw it,” Stauffer said. “But even under [the defense’s] facts, once her arm is almost chopped off, he’s lost any need for self-defense. Even under his version of events, the victim is still chased down.”

Jury deliberations began after closing arguments and will resume Monday, Nov. 20.