Jesse Manuel Figueroa beat his 8-month-old daughter so hard her brain shifted inside her skull. He was already under a restraining order prohibiting unsupervised contact with Raina. She was alone with him all night.

Samuel López | USA Herald Investigative Correspondent · May 30, 2026 · San Jose, CA

On the morning of July 4, 2020, a man drove to a Mountain View fire station with his 8-month-old daughter unconscious in his arms, blood seeping from her nose. He told the firefighters — and later the police — that something had just happened. That she had fallen mysteriously ill on the way to a family barbecue.

Raina was transported to Stanford Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and while she was there, a bruise developed on her left cheek in the distinctive shape and size of an adult hand.

On Friday, May 29, 2026, Jesse Manuel Figueroa, now 36, was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for the murder of his infant daughter.

THE CRIME

The medical examiner's testimony at trial left no room for doubt. Raina died from blunt force trauma. The blow to her head was so powerful, so violent, that her brain physically “dislodged and move to a different part of her skull.”

The autopsy confirmed brain hemorrhages consistent with homicidal violence. Figueroa's story — that Raina simply fell ill on the way to a barbecue — collapsed against the weight of that evidence.

"He forced Raina's mother to drop Raina off at his house the night before the barbecue. Raina spent the night with him, and then sometime the following morning, Figueroa lost his temper — and Raina lost her life."

— MICHAEL GADEBERG, SANTA CLARA COUNTY PROSECUTOR

A PATTERN OF VIOLENCE

Figueroa did not arrive at this moment by accident. Trial evidence painted a portrait of a man who had long used his body as a weapon against the people closest to him. He repeatedly beat and strangled Raina's mother. He forced the couple's two other children — ages 2 and 3 — to kneel on rice as punishment. The court had already seen enough: at the time of Raina's death, Figueroa was operating under a restraining order that explicitly prohibited him from any unsupervised contact with Raina.

He violated it anyway.

KEY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

• Brain hemorrhages from blunt force trauma ruled homicide by medical examiner
• Hand-shaped bruise developed on Raina's left cheek while hospitalized
• Active restraining order barring unsupervised visits was in full effect
• History of domestic violence toward mother; abuse of siblings including forced kneeling on rice
• Figueroa's account to police contradicted by all physical evidence

The sentence closes one chapter of a tragedy that began on July 4, 2020. But it also raises a far more uncomfortable question.

If the courts had already recognized Jesse Figueroa as a danger, how did baby Raina end up alone with him in the first place?

That question may be the most important lesson from this heartbreaking case.

According to evidence presented at trial, Figueroa had a documented history of domestic violence and abusive conduct. Prosecutors described allegations that he beat and strangled Raina's mother.

There was evidence that he abused Raina’s siblings. Most importantly, a court had already intervened and imposed a restraining order that prohibited Figueroa from having unsupervised contact with baby Raina.

Think about that for a moment.

A judge had already reviewed evidence. A court had already assessed the risks. Legal safeguards had already been put into place. The system had effectively concluded that unsupervised visitation was too dangerous.

Yet Raina still ended up spending the night alone with the very person the court had determined required supervision, because, as the prosecution stated, “He forced Raina's mother to drop Raina off at his house the night before…”

The criminal responsibility for Raina's death belongs to Jesse Figueroa. A jury found him guilty, and the court imposed a life sentence accordingly. Nothing in that reality changes.

But criminal responsibility and systemic accountability are not the same thing.

The legal system had already identified danger. The restraining order existed for a reason. The supervised visitation requirement existed for a reason. Those orders were not suggestions. They were judicial findings intended to protect vulnerable children.

Some observers will undoubtedly argue that Raina's mother was herself a victim of domestic violence and coercive control. Domestic violence experts frequently explain that victims can remain trapped in cycles of fear, manipulation, and psychological dependency that outsiders struggle to understand.

That reality deserves serious consideration.

At the same time, difficult questions remain.

If threats were made, why were police not contacted?

And why was there apparently no immediate effort during the overnight period to recover the child once she was away from the alleged coercive pressure?

Those questions are not intended to blame a grieving mother for a murder committed by someone else. Rather, they highlight the larger issue that family courts, dependency systems, social workers, and law enforcement agencies confront every day: whether a protective parent is truly capable of implementing and enforcing court-ordered protections.

The facts presented in this case suggest a catastrophic breakdown in that protective framework.

When courts issue restraining orders involving children, they are relying heavily on compliance by the adults entrusted to carry out those orders. The system assumes someone will call police when violations occur. It assumes someone will report threats. It assumes someone will act before a tragedy unfolds.

When those assumptions fail, the consequences can be irreversible.

The evidence ultimately persuaded a jury that Jesse Figueroa murdered his infant daughter.

In Raina's case, the court recognized the danger. The warning signs were there. The restrictions were there. Yet somehow, the protections failed.

That failure should concern every parent, every judge, every social worker, every domestic violence advocate, and every policymaker in California.

Because the most painful truth emerging from this case is that baby Raina did not die because nobody saw the risk.

She died despite the fact that the risk had already been identified.

And that may be the most heartbreaking lesson of all.

For exclusive investigative reporting, breaking legal analysis, and insider-level coverage you won't find anywhere else, follow USA Herald and stay connected to the stories shaping our courts, our communities, and our country.

Follow USA Herald on X: https://x.com/RealUSAHerald