Jury begins deliberation in murder case of Vicha Ratanapakdee

By Aneela Mirchandani

On Wednesday, the defense in the murder case of Vicha Ratanapakdee made their final case for Antoine Watson, who fatally pushed the 84-year-old in the Anza Vista neighborhood of San Francisco six years ago. 

“Over a month ago, I told you that at the time of the incident, Mr. Watson was 19, and he acted impulsively,” public defender Anita Nabha opened her summation. 

The word “impulsive” would come up over and over as Nabha countered the prosecution’s case that Watson had acted with conscious disregard for human life. 

“They want you to translate dysregulation and frustration into murder,” she said to the jury.

While he did assault the victim, Nabha said, it was an impulsive act. She recounted testimony from expert witnesses who spoke about the impact of childhood trauma on the adolescent brain and connected that with the defendant’s own testimony about his state of mind. She also recounted witness testimony from neighbors who had heard Watson yelling on the morning of Jan.28, 2021, both before and after he fatally pushed the victim.

At the end of the day, the twelve members of the jury were led off to deliberate. They are being asked to provide a verdict on a range of homicide charges, from high to low: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or involuntary manslaughter. In addition, Watson is also facing charges for elder abuse and assault. 

Assistant district attorney Sean Connolly got the final word in his rebuttal. 

Showing an image of the 84-year-old Ratanapakdee as he lay with his head in a pool of blood, he said, “this picture has become his enduring legacy. I don’t believe that picture was meant to be his legacy. This is the only process we have to hold people accountable,” he said, indicating the jury. “Let his legacy be that his killer was held accountable.”

Nabha had earlier given her own exhortations to the jury. 

“You must start with a presumption of innocence,” she said, adding that it was up to the prosecution to wrestle them away from that presumption. The burden of proof, Nabha said, was on the prosecution — they had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Watson had acted with murderous intent, or a conscious disregard for human life. 

“The DA must prove,” she said, “that at the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life.”

Elaborating on this principle, she cast doubt on each item of circumstantial evidence prosecution had laid out the day before, showing how each could have an innocent explanation. 

Watson had yelled, “What the f*ck are you looking at,” seconds prior to his fatal shove of Ratanapakdee. Prosecution had presented this as incriminating, showing murderous intent. But another inference was possible, Nabha said — it could also be that Watson misperceived Ratanapakdee as judging him, causing him to impulsively shove him down to the ground with no murderous intent. 

“If both inferences are possible,” she said to the jury, “you must choose the innocent one.”

While Watson had clearly shown consciousness of guilt after the attack, including by choosing to hide from police, Nabha said, it could be the guilt of assault, a lesser charge — not murder. 

Nabha also accused the prosecution of cherry-picking the most incriminating snippets from jail calls and witness testimonies. To that end, she attempted to recast the evidence by playing longer snippets to provide context. 

Ratanapakdee’s head hitting the concrete had proved fatal, Nabha said, but recounted testimony from medical witnesses to argue that the victim’s preexisting medical condition that necessitated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy might have made internal bleeding more likely. This was exculpatory, showing Watson did not have murderous intent, Nabha said. 

Texting with AsAmNews during the lunch break, the victim’s daughter, Monthanus Ratanapakdee, took exception with the defense’s casting of her father’s death. 

“Listening to the defense was very painful,” she said. “They focused on the defendant’s difficult life, his young age, and having a ‘bad day,’ but very little about my father and the life that was taken. My father was simply out on his morning walk when he was shoved to the ground, suffered a severe head injury and brain hemorrhage, and died two days later. It was also hard to hear them shift blame to my father’s health history, when he would still be here today if he had not been attacked. My father cannot speak for himself. As his daughter, I am asking that justice be done based on the evidence. My focus remains on accountability and justice for my father.”

Ratanapakdee also objected to testimony from a psychiatrist who had not personally examined Watson. 

The twelve-member jury were given detailed instructions by the judge before they were led out into deliberation. Four alternate members of the jury were sent home, to be called on if needed.