Last week Karmelo Anthony got a hearing before a new judge to see if he would be able to get a new trial. Getting the previous trial judge removed from the case was seen by some as a step in the right direction by Anthony's supporters.
In the defense motion seeking to recuse Judge John Roach from the post-trial proceedings, Anthony's attorneys questioned both the judge's impartiality in the case and his courtroom restrictions. Ahead of the high-profile trial, Roach imposed a gag order in the case and barred any electronics from the courtroom during the proceedings due to the attention the case had garnered.
The motion cited what it called "problematic comments" Roach made during an interview following the verdict, in which it said the judge "endorsed the jury's guilty verdict" and defended his courtroom restrictions.
As I pointed out here, the judge did not endorse the guilty verdict. What he did was endorse the jury system saying that whatever verdict the jury reached was the correct one.
In any case, they got their hearing before a new judge and Saturday that judge ruled against them.
Karmelo Anthony’s conviction and 35-year prison sentence will stand after a Texas judge formally denied his bid for a new trial, leaving the former high school athlete to continue his fight on appeal.
Retired District Judge Michael Chitty signed the order Saturday after reviewing Anthony’s motion, the court record, evidence and arguments, briefs and relevant case law. The order was filed Monday and does not detail the judge’s reasoning for denying a new trial.
The decision leaves Anthony’s murder conviction and 35-year prison sentence in place. His challenge will continue on direct appeal.
It seems pretty unlikely that Anthony is going to get another trial but there was some new information presented during the hearing which, at least arguably, could have resulted in this going the other way. What was revealed at the hearing was that there had been a gentleman's agreement between prosecutors and the defense not to reveal damaging information about both Karmelo Anthony and Austin Metcalf during the trial.
You may recall that Anthony never testified in his own defense. That's not surprising in a case where someone is clearly guilty (Anthony confessed to a police officer at the scene) as the chance of blowing any defense during cross examination is pretty high. But Anthony's defense team argued in last week's hearing that Anthony was planning to testify but ultimately was afraid to do so because there was concern the prosecutors could go back on the gentlemen's agreement.
Karmelo Anthony had planned to testify during his Texas murder trial over a track meet stabbing but backed out amid sudden concerns that prosecutors would raise potentially damaging evidence about the teenager's past, one of his lawyers said Friday...
During the second day of a hearing near Dallas, defense attorney Toby Shook said the teenager's plans to testify unraveled over worries that prosecutors would renege on agreements to not present evidence that might further inflame an already highly charged case.
“It was essential that the jury hear Karmelo and hear his explanation,” Shook said.
So what was this gentlemen's agreement? Basically, both sides agreed not to raise issues that would go to character which happened prior to the stabbing. In the case of Austin Metcalf, that meant not revealing that he and his twin brother had been caught painting racist graffiti.
A document presented in court showed that the defense had photographs of graffiti allegedly created by the twins and another boy, featuring phrases including 'KKK,' 'kill all black people,' 'Heil Hitler' and the N-word.
Police also had bodycam footage from their response to the incident, in which Austin can allegedly be heard admitting to the officer, 'We did some stuff, we did some vandalism.'
Both twins ultimately received 12 months of probation for the incident, according to Howard, who also revealed that Austin had previously faced charges for assault causing bodily injury...
He also pointed to a March 2022 incident in which Austin allegedly mocked a Black student for eating a banana and filmed another student as he appeared to shove the boy's head into his crotch.
Why would the defense agree not to mention this at trial? Because the stuff they were hiding about Anthony was arguably even worse for his case. He had a history of aggression and was talking about wanting to stab someone hours before he murdered Metcalf.
'There is a text message where he fantasies about stabbing someone and licking the blood off the blade,' Wirskye told the court.
Just hours before the killing, Anthony's ex-girlfriend reportedly told an assistant principal that he was stalking her.
One of the messages recovered from Anthony's phone that day showed him sending her a photo of a knife with the ominous message, 'I'm lowkey on the verge.'...
Wirskye said that while living in Baton Rouge, his parents enrolled him in a special LSU program for children who struggled to control their aggression and 'keep their hands to themselves.'
So both sides had something to lose if the truth came out and both sides agreed that the threats that could be generated would overwhelm the trial. So they agreed not to reveal any of this. That was the gentleman's agreement. But having lost at trial, Anthony's team is now claiming the agreement resulted in an unfair verdict. So far, they haven't found a judge who would agree with them.
Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.
Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member