PRESS RELEASE: After a month-long trial, a jury acquitted Antoine Watson of first- and second-degree murder and elder abuse from a highly publicized January 2021 incident. The jury convicted Watson of involuntary manslaughter and assault for pushing Vicha Ratanapakdee, who later died from the fall. Jurors reviewed extensive evidence that refuted widespread misinformation that circulated after a viral video clip.
Fair Verdict Reached After Month-long Trial of Antoine Watson that Clarified Misinformation
SAN FRANCISCO—After a month-long trial, a San Francisco jury acquitted Antoine Watson of first- and second-degree murder as well as elder abuse from a highly publicized January 2021 incident. On Jan. 16, the jury returned convictions of involuntary manslaughter and felony assault for Watson’s pushing of Vicha Ratanapakdee, who later died from the fall. Jurors reviewed extensive evidence and testimony, including full surveillance footage of the incident shown by the defense. That evidence refuted widespread rumors and misinformation that circulated after a short video clip of the incident went viral in the days following the incident.
Jury, Verdict, and Sentencing
The jury—composed of twelve San Franciscans of different ethnicities, ages, and professional backgrounds—deliberated for several hours before rendering a verdict on Jan. 16:
- Rejecting the murder charge after finding that Watson did not have the intent to kill or understand that his actions could cause death.
- Rejecting the elder abuse charge, concluding that Ratanapakdee’s age was not apparent at the brief moment of the encounter, as his head and face were largely obscured by a hat and mask.
- Finding Watson guilty of involuntary manslaughter and assault likely to cause great bodily injury; and finding true allegations that he inflicted injury on a person over 70, and that person became comatose.
After the verdict, prosecutors requested that the jury hear further arguments on three aggravating factors. On Jan. 28, jurors returned their findings. They rejected the allegation that Watson is a “serious danger to society.” They found that the victim was “particularly vulnerable” and that the “crime involved callousness, or cruelty, or viciousness.” The prosecution withdrew a fourth allegation of “planning or sophistication” due to lack of evidence.
Watson faces a maximum statutory sentence of 7 to 9 years. He has spent the last five years in S.F. County Jail and will be sentenced at an upcoming hearing.
“We thank the jury for listening to the testimony, carefully evaluating the facts in evidence, and rendering a fair verdict in accordance with the law,” said Deputy Public Defender Anita Nabha. “Antoine Watson was a 19-year-old in distress who made a terrible, impulsive decision with devastating consequences. The jury correctly found that he had no intent to kill and no knowledge of Mr. Ratanapakdee’s race or age at the time.”
Evidence and Testimony Dispelled Widespread Misinformation
Although the District Attorney’s Office did not allege a hate crime due to lack of evidence of bias, public perception of the case was shaped by widespread assumptions of racial bias. Trial evidence showed that Watson could not see Ratanapakdee’s race because his features were obscured by a brimmed baseball cap pulled down over his forehead and a surgical mask pulled up high. Two independent witnesses—who came up close to Ratanapakdee while he was on the ground—corroborated that his race was not apparent and testified that they thought he was white.
The defense also addressed persistent misinformation about Watson’s actions after the push. Based on evidence obtained by police and prosecutors, it was revealed at trial that:
- Cell phone records showed Watson was on the phone with his mom when he first went back to check on Ratanapakdee, but Watson did not take any pictures.
- Surveillance video showed that Watson went back twice to check on Ratanapakdee.
- There was no evidence or testimony of Watson ‘celebrating’ afterwards. Rather, an independent witness, located by the police, testified that Watson sounded like he was in “agony” after the push.
All available surveillance footage was admitted into evidence for the jurors to review.
The Defense Presented Context that the Prosecution Ignored
Deputy Public Defender Bao Doan, who assisted Nabha in the trial, said that, “It was important for us to show the bigger context to the jury because the prosecution only wanted to show the jury the moment of the push and ignore all other evidence that did not support their pursuit of a murder conviction.”
On the morning of Jan. 28, 2021, Watson was in a state of emotional distress that had been building since the night before. It started with him leaving an upsetting family situation, going on a drive with his girlfriend, and colliding with a parked car. Evidence showed that when police arrived at that scene, an officer pointed a gun at Watson and handcuffed him before releasing him with a citation. As Watson and his girlfriend drove away, they began to experience car trouble. They drove to the Anza Vista neighborhood, where Watson had spent time growing up at his great-grandmother’s house. Video footage showed that Watson was visibly distressed when he parked around 3 a.m. and again just before 8 a.m. when the car would not start. Cell phone records obtained by the prosecution affirmed that Watson called his mother for help.
Just after 8 a.m., Watson got out of his car, punched another parked car, and started running down the street yelling and crying—which was corroborated by witnesses who heard screaming that was described as sounding like a “distressed” person and “like something [was] terribly wrong.”
Watson testified that he was crying, upset, and “wasn’t thinking right” when he pushed a man he misperceived to be staring at him. He didn’t realize how hard he had pushed him until afterwards. He said that he only noticed Ratanapakdee’s gray hair when he returned to check on him.
Nabha, Watson’s attorney, argued that he did not have the time or forethought to think that a push would lead to someone’s death. Watson was 19 years old at the time, and the defense called an expert in adolescent brain development to educate the jurors about impulsive behavior and lack of forethought.
Video footage showed that Watson returned to check on Ratanapakdee a second time, which is when he saw that someone was already on the phone calling for help. Watson testified that he left in “shock and panic.” He also said that he was ashamed of the way he acted and was sorry for the pain he had caused to the victim’s family and his own.
A Community in Need of Healing and Resources
“I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr. Ratanapakdee’s family for the heartbreaking loss of a beloved father and grandfather,” said San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju.
“This tragic incident garnered significant attention at a time when the President of the United States was stoking racism against Asian American communities, and that broader climate understandably shaped public reaction,” said Raju. “Our legal system exists to examine facts carefully and without assumption. This was a fair and thorough trial, and we appreciate the jurors’ careful review of the evidence. My hope is that our communities can move forward by investing in restorative processes that prioritize healing for individuals harmed.”
Watson’s defense team included Deputy Public Defenders Anita Nabha and Bao Doan, Investigator Jesse Huber, Paralegal Miluska Sifuentes, and Youth Defender Social Worker Christina Powers.
##
*This release was updated on 2/3/25 to include some of Raju’s original comments to the press.