An assistant district attorney appearing in court announces himself or herself as “for the People.” In the recent criminal trial of Antoine Watson for the murder of 84-year-old Vicha Ratanapakdee, the People lost.
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins should explain to the People what happened and why. She and her assistant D.A.s work for the People and are accountable to the People. People of all backgrounds who have heard about the jury verdicts of
– Not Guilty on First and Second Degree Murder and Elder Abuse and
– Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter and Use of Force Causing Grave Bodily Harm
are shocked, saddened, and outraged by this outcome. They deserve an answer in order to get to what is next, especially for Asian American and elderly victims of street crime in our city.
Empowered with information, the People can advocate for needed change so that never again can a defendant’s “bad day” result in it becoming the victim’s final day on earth and the defendant facing minimal consequences.
The surprise about the verdict is a product of the facts themselves: In January 2021, Grandpa Vicha was walking near his daughter’s home in the Anza Vista neighborhood when he was noticed by the defendant who felt he was staring at or judging him for a litany of misdeeds and mishaps that had engulfed the defendant over the previous 18 hours. The 19-year-old defendant rushed at Grandpa Vicha at top speed, starting from about 50 yards away, and shoved him so hard that he collided into a wall, lost consciousness, and died of his injuries two days later.
The two had never met each other. The main reason the defendant was present in the neighborhood is that he had crashed his car there the night before after a police chase and, unable to move it, slept in the car overnight until shortly before rushing at Grandpa Vicha. Prior to the police chase, the defendant had been involved in a series of arguments with various extended family members. According to San Francisco Chronicle reporter Ko Lyn Cheang’s trial coverage, the public defender described the defendant’s fatal shove of Grandpa Vicha as “an impulsive act during an emotional storm” and “a moment of panic from a teenager.”
The combination of a defendant’s judgment diminished by emotions, a death with wide community implications, and limited punishment for the convicted perpetrator harkens back to the Dan White and Vincent Chin cases of the 1970s and 1980s. Former Supervisor Dan White served five years in prison, after being sentenced to less than eight, after relying upon a diminished capacity defense to killing Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. In 1982, two Michigan autoworkers were placed on probation without any prison time for the killing of Vincent Chin after getting into a fight and blaming him for the success of the Japanese auto industry, which resulted in widespread job losses, including their own. Outrage and advocacy led by, respectively, the gay and Asian American communities, produced legal reforms restricting the diminished capacity defense and recognizing bias and hate as elements added to criminal charges and sentences.
The district attorney’s duty to inform the People does not stem from a notion that she or her team of attorneys and investigators did a poor job. It is necessary because, in a democracy that stresses the Rule of Law, the People must know and understand how the judicial system works and why it arrives at its decisions. Judges are restricted by ethics requirements and so are unwilling to discuss cases that are or may be before them. Public defenders, although one might think by that title they have a duty to defend the public, have just one client — the defendant. While retired judges would be an adequate substitute to help explain the law and its procedures and consequences, the district attorney remains as the representative of the People who should step up and educate the citizenry. The district attorney’s office has committed to talk to the public about the case once it is fully resolved.
Grandpa Vicha’s killer faces up to eight years in prison for his two convictions, plus additional years of imprisonment depending upon the existence of any aggravating factors. However, his prison sentence can be reduced by up to eight years because he has been held in jail since his 2021 arrest and, under state law, may be granted credit for that time. Thus, it is currently uncertain whether he will be sent to prison and serve any additional time at all.
When a defendant is found not guilty of a crime, the Constitution’s bar against being tried twice for the same crime prohibits a prosecutor from appealing the acquittal and trying the defendant again. All the more reason why the district attorney should tell the People whether the judge allowed in or kept out key evidence; whether the instructions to the jury were inadequate; whether the experts, witnesses, or the public defender might have misrepresented key factors; whether there is a legal gap that only the legislature can change; or what the reason was for the outcomes in this case. Otherwise, the People are faced with the prospect that a “bad day” is all that is needed for an acquittal.
When the People are uninformed about the complexities of the justice system, the People can do little more than complain and express outrage. Empowered with information, the People can advocate for needed change so that never again can a defendant’s “bad day” result in it becoming the victim’s final day on earth and the defendant facing minimal consequences.
John Trasviña, a native San Franciscan, has served in three presidential administrations and is a former dean at the University of San Francisco School of Law.