It has been nearly six years since Troy McAlister struck and killed 27-year-old Hanako Abe and 60-year-old Elizabeth Platt at Second and Mission Streets in San Francisco. On New Year’s Eve 2020, McAlister — who already had more than 70 felonies and 34 misdemeanors in San Francisco alone — was high on methamphetamine when he crashed into another car and struck the two women in a crosswalk. McAlister fled the scene and hid in a nearby building, where police found and arrested him. Officers later discovered meth and a gun in the car. One day before the fatal crash, McAlister stole the vehicle from a woman he met on a dating app after brandishing a 9 mm pistol while they waited for food on their second date at Nation’s Giant Hamburgers in Daly City.
On Oct. 5, 2026, Hanako’s mother, Hiroko Abe, who has waited all those years for justice, was stunned to hear that Kourtney Bell, an assistant district attorney in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Homicide Unit, would be accepting a plea deal for her daughter’s killer 10 days before McAlister’s trial was set to begin. During a Zoom call with Mrs. Abe, who is located in Japan, and Tasha Yorozu, an attorney who doesn’t represent her but has graciously volunteered to translate for her over the course of the case, Bell said McAlister’s public defender had offered to resolve the criminal matter in People v. McAlister, as follows:
A plea to two counts of Penal Code section 191.5, commonly known as Gross Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated; and
An admission of his prior strike offense.
‘I would appreciate knowing before the hearing whether you would like the District Attorney’s Office to accept the defense offer,’ Bell said.
In exchange, Defendant would receive a sentence of 20 years in State Prison … sentencing and the application of custody credits in California can be complicated. As a result, the 20-year sentence does not necessarily equate to 20 years in custody.
While the plea deal sounds impressive, with credit for nearly seven years in San Francisco County Jail custody awaiting trial and “good behavior credits,” McAlister could walk free in less than seven years.
In a follow-up email, Bell said he was reaching out “to memorialize the public defender’s offer that was discussed during our Zoom call moments ago.” He repeated in writing the details of the plea agreement and reiterated that the 20-year sentence did not “necessarily equate to 20 years in custody.” Bell ended his email to Mrs. Abe by stating that he would be meeting with the judge responsible for the settlement in the City and County of San Francisco the next morning. “If possible, I would appreciate knowing before the hearing whether you would like the District Attorney’s Office to accept the defense offer,” Bell said.
‘It is a matter of trust when those who are tasked with upholding the law don’t live up to their own promises.’
— Hiroko Abe, mother of Troy McAlister victim Hanako Abe
At 9:30 a.m. on Oct. 6, Mrs. Abe sent an email to Bell objecting to the plea deal which stated, “With a criminal who has committed serious offenses over a hundred times released back onto the streets so quickly, how can the people of San Francisco possibly feel safe? This trial must serve as a warning to anyone considering committing a crime. I believe that a verdict rendered by a jury is a direct choice made by the citizens regarding what kind of city they want San Francisco to be.”
At 11:30 a.m. Bell responded, “Thank you for your thoughtful email. I will ensure that your concerns are expressed when we meet regarding whether the case should resolve or proceed to trial.”
The Oct. 6 hearing in Department 26 before Superior Court Judge Eric Fleming was postponed to 9 a.m. on Thursday, Oct. 8, which gave Mrs. Abe time to write a lengthier, more detailed letter objecting to the plea deal. Then, at around 7 p.m. on Oct. 7, Mrs. Abe received an unexpected email from Bell — the District Attorney’s Office had accepted the deal.
“I am reaching out because I wanted to inform you that a decision has been made regarding the McAlister case,” Bell says. “After careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, the evidence, and the available sentencing options, the District Attorney’s Office has decided to resolve the case on the following terms:
1. An admission of guilt to both counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated;
2. An admission of the prior strike conviction;
3. A waiver of appellate rights as a part of the resolution; and
4. An apology on the record for his actions on December 31, 2020, at sentencing.
I recognize that this may not be the outcome you wanted, particularly given the devastating loss your family has experienced. This was not an easy decision. After carefully evaluating the case and the available options, we believe this resolution represents an appropriate and substantial measure of accountability under the circumstances,” Bell explains.
“I was shocked last night to learn the District Attorney’s Office had accepted the plea deal while I was in the process of writing my letter. It was like the rug was pulled out from underneath me. It was unexpected as I was doing exactly what Mr. Bell asked,” Mrs. Abe said through her translator in an exclusive interview with The Voice. “It is a matter of trust when those who are tasked with upholding the law don’t live up to their own promises.”
Mrs. Abe finished her thorough letter of objection and sent it to Bell that evening. “I am writing to state clearly and respectfully that I oppose the District Attorney’s Office accepting Mr. McAlister’s proposed plea offer. Out of my love for my daughter and respect for Ms. Platt’s family, I ask that this case proceed to trial and be decided by a jury,” Mrs. Abe wrote. “I understand that a trial carries uncertainty, including the possibility of an outcome less favorable than the plea agreement. However, these risks are not what guides my position. This is not about retribution or securing a particular number of years of imprisonment. Rather, it is about achieving broader objectives that are fundamentally more important and can only be realized through a public trial … Please ensure that my opposition is communicated to everyone involved in making this decision and made part of the record. I also respectfully request that my opposition be provided to the settlement judge before tomorrow’s 9 a.m. hearing. Please do not characterize the proposed plea agreement as having my support or that it is an outcome reached on behalf of my family. We respectfully oppose its acceptance.”
During the Oct. 8 hearing, where Alison Platt, Elizabeth Platt’s sister, was also in attendance via Zoom, Judge Fleming acknowledged receipt of Mrs. Abe’s letter to her through translator Yorozu. “Thank you for expressing your position. D.A. Bell asked that you be allowed to speak before a plea was accepted. I reviewed your letter and I understand you respectively oppose the plea not for retribution but for justice. I understand you received this information less than a week ago. At this time, we are not going to take the disposition today. At the request of the D.A. I’m putting this matter over to the 14 at 1:30 p.m. so there can be more discussion on this case.”
Full letter sent to San Francisco District Attorney’s Office by Hanako Abe’s mother Hiroko Abe:
Dear Mr. Bell,
I am writing to state clearly and respectfully that I oppose the District Attorney’s Office accepting Mr. McAlister’s proposed plea offer. Out of my love for my daughter and respect for Ms. Platt’s family, I ask that this case proceed to trial and be decided by a jury.
My position is not motivated by retribution, nor is it simply about obtaining the longest possible prison sentence. Hanako loved San Francisco and was proud to call it her home. She wanted it to be a safe and beautiful city where individuals, couples, and families could walk freely and enjoy their community. My request for a trial is grounded in justice for Hanako and Ms. Platt. It is also driven by four broader objectives that I believe serve the interests of the San Francisco community.
(1) A trial can invoke or serve as an impetus for meaningful reflection and accountability. My hope is that people who become intoxicated or use drugs and then commit crimes will confront the consequences of their actions, take the time to reflect upon the harm they have caused, atone for their mistakes, and change their ways. A public trial can also send a message to potential wrongdoers to pause and reconsider their decisions, thus preventing another family from suffering the loss that our families have endured. These important messages can be conveyed in a public trial in a way that a negotiated plea deal may not.
(2) A trial can contribute to restoring a safe San Francisco for everyone. So many San Franciscans have reached out to me and my family in support of Hanako’s hopes to make San Francisco a safe city. I sincerely believe that a public trial will further strengthen and unify San Francisco’s sense of community and the importance of all of us working together for a safe, energized, and thriving San Francisco.
(3) The people of San Francisco should have an opportunity to weigh the evidence and express the community’s judgment through a jury. So many San Franciscans have shared with me that the circumstances of Hanako’s and Ms. Platt’s deaths deeply touched the broader community. I believe the fairest and most transparent outcome is for the people of San Francisco to hear the case and decide the outcome.
(4) A trial can bring appropriate public involvement and scrutiny to the legal process. Serious questions have arisen regarding earlier charging decisions, the treatment of prior offenses, and whether decisions by public officials have served the interests of justice rather than institutional or personal gains or interests. Those matters should not be hidden by a plea agreement. Such a treatment would not be fair to San Franciscans. If the proceedings reveal conduct that warrants public concern, the people of San Francisco should be able to hear the facts and reach their own conclusions about both Mr. McAlister’s conduct and the handling of this case.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the District Attorney’s Office reverse its decision to accept the proposed plea offer and permit this case to be decided by a jury.
I understand that a trial carries uncertainty, including the possibility of an outcome less favorable than the plea agreement. However, these risks are not what guides my position. This is not about retribution or securing a particular number of years of imprisonment. Rather, it is about achieving broader objectives that are fundamentally more important and can only be realized through a public trial as I have attempted to explain above.
Please ensure that my opposition is communicated to everyone involved in making this decision and made part of the record. I also respectfully request that my opposition be provided to the settlement judge before tomorrow’s 9 a.m. hearing.
Please do not characterize the proposed plea agreement as having my support or that it is an outcome reached on behalf of my family. We respectfully oppose its acceptance.
As you requested, I have done my best to convey my views after first learning of the plea offer only two days ago on Monday, October 5. During our discussion that day, you informed me that I could provide my thoughts by email before the settlement hearing originally scheduled on the very next day on Tuesday, October 6, which was later continued to tomorrow, Thursday, October 8. Although I had very little time to absorb and evaluate the significant information presented to me on October 5, I emailed you my brief preliminary thoughts on October 6. In this email, I have made every effort to thoughtfully consider the matter and communicate my position as clearly and thoroughly as possible.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Hiroko Abe
Hanako Abe’s mother
October 7, 2026
