Man accused of killing Thai immigrant to face trial
The defense attorney began building a case for an involuntary manslaughter charge instead of the counts of murder and elder abuse.
A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Friday that the man accused of murdering an 84-year-old Thai immigrant — a case that invigorated a movement to stop violence against Asian Americans, and helped electrify the recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin — can now be tried for his alleged crimes.
Judge Richard Darwin made his ruling at the end of a short but dramatic hearing, during which prosecutor Sean Connolly and public defender Anita Nabha both telegraphed the arguments they will likely wield at trial. Supporters of the victim, Vicha Ratanapakdee, packed the courtroom, some wearing light blue “Justice for Vicha” Tshirts with a picture of the man’s smiling, bespectacled face.
In his closing arguments, Connolly pointed to evidence of “express malice” in the actions of defendant Antoine Watson, who allegedly got out of a silver BMW on the morning of Jan. 28, 2021, punched a parked car and yelled at Ratanapakdee, prosecutors say, as the elderly man “gingerly” sauntered up a residential street in the Anza Vista neighborhood.
Video displayed during two days of witness testimony shows Ratanapakdee try to change direction, “apparently to avoid the defendant,” Connolly said, in the moment before an assailant — identified as Watson — sprints across the intersection of Anzavista and Fortuna avenues and hits the 84-year-old man with such force that he launches into the air, his hat flying off his head before he crashes into the pavement.
As Connolly recounted the point-by-point details of the confrontation and “tackling” that left Ratanapakdee with a fatal head injury, the victim’s daughter, Monthanus Ratanapakdee, fixed her gaze on the courtroom floor. Other spectators tried to console her, and a sheriff ’s deputy fetched tissues for several people to wipe tears.
Watson’s family members also attended the three days of witness testimony that wrapped up with Friday’s ruling. They have declined to comment publicly.
Defense attorney Anita Nabha disputed Connolly’s recitation of the facts, and especially one assertion from the prosecution — that Watson walked back to the victim holding an object that appeared to be a phone, and leaned over as if to photograph the gravely wounded man. She argued, further, that Watson appeared distressed after a run-in with police hours earlier, and that he may not have known Ratanapakdee was elderly, a suggestion that drew a loud grunt and angry muttering from a spectator in the back row.
Nabha also began building a case for an involuntary manslaughter charge instead of the counts of murder and elder abuse that Watson is currently facing, signaling a possible defense strategy at trial.
When the judge made his ruling, people clapped and a few whispered “thank you,” a sign of how politically and emotionally charged the case had become. It will still grind through several more proceedings before going to trial, beginning with a defense motion to release Watson from custody. He appeared at all three days of the preliminary hearing in a red jumpsuit with his waist and ankles shackled.
On July 1, the court will hold a new arraignment hearing on the murder and elder abuse counts that Watson is facing, now that the judge has found sufficient evidence to pursue them.
“Any time we don’t prevail, we’re disappointed,” Nabha told The Chronicle as she left court, indicating, however, that she’s not surprised by the result. She also expressed satisfaction with some of Connolly’s comments at the hearing — in particular acknowledgment from the prosecution that her arguments were appropriate and relevant.
Nabha noted, moreover, that the prosecution had not tried to add a hate crime charge, in spite of media narratives that conflated the fatal assault with a general rise in malicious attacks against Asian Americans.
“This was their opportunity to present the evidence to add those charges,” she said. “And they didn’t do that, because the evidence doesn’t exist.”
She viewed the case as tainted by “a sad racial animus” that exacerbated the pain for both families, while impeding Watson’s chances of getting a fair trial.