Two criminal cases going through the San Francisco Superior Court, both involving the killing of Asian women, continue to draw controversy as one defendant took the unusual step of defending himself at trial, and another was considered for pretrial diversion.
Yik Oi Huang
The trial for the murder of Yik Oi Huang, affectionately known as “Grandma Huang” entered its fourth week last week with Keonte Gathron continuing to represent himself, while receiving whispered guidance from an assigned deputy public defender seated beside him. On Oct. 28, a San Francisco Police Department witness testified that Gathron’s DNA matched samples collected from the body of 88-year-old Yik Oi Huang, found in a Visitacion Valley playground seven years ago. The scene was described as indicative of sexual assault, with Huang discovered bearing multiple blunt force injuries to the head, her pants pushed down, and her shirt pushed up.
Presiding Judge Eric Fleming maintained a stern demeanor throughout the proceedings, particularly during Gathron’s cross-examination of the testifying San Francisco Police Department officer. Fleming repeatedly admonished Gathron for vague and unfocused questioning, urging him to be more direct. Gathron responded with defiance, “Are you a referee or a player?” and “I’m getting triple-teamed here,” drawing visible discomfort from the courtroom.
Gathron cross-examines an SFPD witness during his trial on Oct. 28 presided over by Judge Eric Fleming.
Jurors appeared weary from the prolonged and emotionally charged trial, which has been marked by erratic courtroom exchanges and disturbing forensic detail. The proceedings were expected to conclude by the end of October.
Hanako Abe
Public outrage erupted on Sept. 26, when it was revealed that Hanako Abe’s case, originally slated for trial in early October, had instead been rerouted to a diversion hearing overseen by Judge Michael Begert. The backlash was swift and palpable, and it appeared to reverberate within the judiciary itself.
Just four days later, on Sept. 30, Begert made an unannounced appearance at a Public Safety Panel hosted by Stop Crime Action, where SFPD Chief Paul Yep, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and other law enforcement leaders convened. Notably, Stop Crime Action has assigned Begert a failing grade for his handling of repeat offenders, making his presence at the event conspicuous and awkward. Why was he there? Some speculated it was a calculated effort to rehabilitate his public image; others interpreted it as a form of intimidation. “I felt sick,” one attendee confided, upon seeing Begert seated prominently in the front rows of a community forum dedicated to public safety.
Following the panel, I asked Begert directly why he had agreed to preside over a diversion hearing in Abe’s case. His response: “It was put on my calendar by another judge.” The explanation raised eyebrows. Judges typically manage their own calendars, and it is highly unusual, if not procedurally suspect, for one judge to accept a hearing on behalf of another without prior consultation or consent.
On Oct. 3, community leaders and activists gathered on the steps of San Francisco Superior Court to protest the proposed diversion for Troy McAlister, charged with the hit-and-run death of Abe. Begert, seemingly caught off guard by the intensity of public opposition, postponed the hearing by two weeks, an apparent attempt to deflate media attention.
By Oct. 28, the stakes had only grown. Begert was seen peering out from his courtroom in Department 18 multiple times before the 9 a.m. start of McAlister’s diversion hearing, visibly attuned to the turnout of press and community leaders. Despite being present, Assistant District Attorney Kourtney Bell declined to argue the case, delegating the responsibility to Assistant District Attorney Edward Mario. Mario’s legal reasoning appeared sound, but his unfamiliarity with the case was glaring. At one point, he mistakenly referred to one of the victims as “Mr. Abe”, a jarring error, given that both victims were women.
Deputy Public Defender Scott Grant attempted a procedural maneuver: he sought to sever the DUI charge from the remaining counts, which included vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, hit-and-run causing death, reckless driving causing injury, possession of methamphetamine, and resisting arrest. The strategy would have allowed McAlister to plead guilty to the DUI charge and potentially qualify for diversion on the remaining charges, which are technically within the bounds of the law, but in clear “violation of its spirit,” argued ADA Mario.
In a moment of rhetorical flourish, Begert asked, “Who has the authority to sever these charges?” Grant replied, “This court.” Ultimately, Begert denied diversion for McAlister, being fully aware that his courtroom was packed with political leaders and community advocates who had long demanded accountability in the wake of Abe’s death. These folks recalled former District Attorney Chesa Boudin, sparked by the deaths of Abe and Elizabeth Platt.
McAlister’s trial is scheduled to proceed on Nov. 25 at 9 a.m.