Karmelo Anthony Sentenced: 35 Years for Austin Metcalf Murder

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "Karmelo Anthony Sentenced: 35 Years for Austin Metcalf Murder"

Podcast: Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Host: Donna Rotunno
Guest: Jeremy Rosenthal, Texas Criminal Defense Attorney
Date: June 11, 2026

---

Overview

This episode centers on the high-profile trial and sentencing of Carmelo Anthony for the murder of Austin Metcalf—a deadly stabbing at a Texas high school track meet. Host Donna Rotunno and guest attorney Jeremy Rosenthal dissect the rapid trial, the unique aspects of Texas law, jury dynamics, and the enduring impact of the verdict. The discussion emphasizes courtroom strategy, the exclusion of cameras, jury composition, and potential grounds for appeal, all set against the background of a case that gripped national attention.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Rapid Pace & Efficiency of the Trial

• [01:14–03:37]
  • The trial’s speed was attributed to Judge John Roach’s reputation for efficient, no-nonsense court management.
  • Roach’s practical and empathetic approach included personal actions such as wearing an ankle monitor or using breathalyzers to test orders he imposes on defendants.
  • The Collin County court system is known for similar efficiency, but Roach’s work ethic stands out.

Notable Quote:

"Judge John Roach...is the kind of judge who's going to eat lunch in the holdover with criminal defendants just to make sure that, you know, they're being fed what's appropriate." — Jeremy Rosenthal [01:50]

---

Media Access: Closed Courtroom and Its Rationale

• [04:30–08:27]
  • The decision to ban cameras was likely due to the age of several witnesses (many under 18), not simply Texas protocol.
  • The lack of cameras created reliance on attendee reports, leading to public speculation and misinformation.
  • Donna noted she generally supports open courtrooms but agreed with the closure in this specific instance.

Notable Quotes:

"I've been a big advocate for open courtrooms...but I did agree with the decision in this case to keep it closed." — Donna Rotunno [06:22]

"If it's televised, it really erases a lot of that speculation because we can sort of all see it..." — Jeremy Rosenthal [07:54]

---

The Jury’s Verdict: Quick Consensus

• [08:27–11:28]
  • Jury deliberated for just three hours, rejecting manslaughter and finding Anthony guilty of murder.
  • The quick verdict pointed to strong consensus and the case’s clearcut evidence.
  • Emotional moments, like the CPR video shown in court, visibly affected the jury.

Notable Quotes:

"...This case lends itself a lot more to manslaughter. And the defense got every charge that they asked for. And the jury in this case had multiple off ramps and they just didn’t take any. So it shows you the prosecution did a really good job here." — Jeremy Rosenthal [10:13]

---

Defense Strategy: The Question of Testimony and Self-Defense

• [11:43–19:09]
  • Critical discussion on the decision not to have Anthony testify in his own defense.
  • The lack of first-person testimony on Anthony’s fear undermined the self-defense plea, especially with a jury deciding the sentence.
  • The defense’s witness admitted Anthony was the aggressor, further eroding the self-defense claim.
  • Donna and Jeremy both generally support putting defendants on the stand in self-defense cases to humanize them and help jurors understand their mindset.

Notable Quotes:

"I really thought the minute he decided not to testify, I thought, well, you're going nowhere now for sure." — Donna Rotunno [12:32]

"...You had really no prayer without him on the stand." — Jeremy Rosenthal [14:00]

"Nine and a half times out of 10, I have put my client on the witness stand ... it's very, very tough to do [self-defense without testimony]." — Donna Rotunno [18:30]

---

Sentencing & Parole Prospects

• [20:52–23:54]
  • Anthony was sentenced to 35 years; under Texas law, he must serve at least half before being eligible for parole.
  • The likelihood of parole heavily depends on the victim’s family's input at parole hearings; emotional victim statements can impact outcomes.

Notable Quotes:

"If he's eligible for parole after half, 50% in Texas, being a weapon offense, he's going to serve more statistically..." — Jeremy Rosenthal [21:34]
"...They did give statements though yesterday...they were definitely not happy with what took place. And they were pretty tough on Carmelo Anthony yesterday." — Donna Rotunno [22:43]

---

What the Jury Needed for a Viable Self-Defense Claim

• [23:54–27:59]
  • Jury required credible evidence that Anthony “feared for his life” to support a deadly force self-defense claim; testimony lacked persuasion.
  • Prosecution’s rapport-building with young witnesses and emotional presentation played a pivotal role.
  • Guest recounted witnessing jurors’ reactions and the strategic presentation by both prosecution and defense.

Notable Quotes:

"The jury needed to hear that Carmelo Anthony feared for his life...And you were never gonna make it real in this case... but you had really no prayer without him on the stand." — Jeremy Rosenthal [24:07]

---

Jury Composition, Diversity, and the Batson Challenge

• [27:59–32:52]
  • Collin County is growing and diverse, but the final jury had no African American members.
  • The state’s peremptory strikes against three Black female educators led to a Batson challenge (claiming racial bias in jury selection), likely to be a central point for appeal.
  • Prosecutors argued they struck educators, not specifically Black jurors, due to concerns about potential sympathy from teachers.

Notable Quotes:

"There were three African American females, three black jurors that were struck by the state...the response...was that they were all educators and that they did not want teachers on the jury." — Donna Rotunno [30:23]
"That’s probably the most dramatic moment, really, of this trial." — Jeremy Rosenthal [32:36]

---

The Role of Race: External Noise vs. Courtroom Reality

• [32:52–35:17]
  • Both agreed: race was not a factual issue in the case, despite public perception and outside noise.
  • Race discussions remain relevant to some, but evidence and testimony presented in court did not touch on race as a motive or factor.

Notable Quotes:

"Race had absolutely nothing to do with the facts of this case. Nothing." — Donna Rotunno [33:26]
"Anytime, Donna, that we're talking about the race card, I always think the question is, was race a factor to who? ...I think what's evident is that...it was not a factor for the jury." — Jeremy Rosenthal [34:01]

---

What's Next: Appeals and Future Prospects

• [35:17–39:04]
  • Anthony will be processed through Texas prisons; appeals process likely to be slow—may take a year or more.
  • Direct appeal prospects are slim, barring the Batson challenge and possible procedural missteps.
  • In Texas, the notice of appeal is filed first; the actual appeal follows after obtaining trial transcripts, possibly accompanied by a motion for new trial for strategic reasons.

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• "If you lose a case within the first 15 minutes, you’ve really lost it bad." — Jeremy Rosenthal [09:33]
• "I also have the right to tackle you on the way to the witness chair." — Jeremy Rosenthal [19:41]
• "Unringing the bell...we all know that that doesn't work." — Jeremy Rosenthal [20:12]
• "So sometimes I think lawyers get really too caught up in the technical part of it...But like you’re saying, you also have to persuade." — Jeremy Rosenthal [20:25]
• "The whole thing was so avoidable and so tragic in so many ways." — Donna Rotunno [27:59]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• The fast trial process: [01:14–03:37]
• Why no cameras in court: [04:30–08:27]
• Jury verdict and its speed: [08:27–11:28]
• Defense’s strategic choices: [11:43–19:09]
• Sentencing details & parole: [20:52–23:54]
• What jury needed for self-defense: [23:54–27:59]
• Jury diversity and Batson challenge: [27:59–32:52]
• Race and its relevance: [32:52–35:17]
• Anthony’s future and appeals: [35:17–39:04]

---

Tone & Style

• Conversational, candid, and occasionally humorous (“I only go [to the Rangers game] when it’s free…” [07:09]; “I have the right to tackle you on the way to the witness chair.” [19:41]).
• Analytical and pragmatic, both host and guest draw from extensive courtroom experience.
• Balanced between legal technicality and layperson clarity.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode

This episode offers an in-depth, insider look at one of Texas’s headline-making trials. Both the legal strategies and behind-the-scenes realities of courtroom drama are dissected for seasoned lawyers and curious citizens alike, shedding light on why the verdict fell as it did, how race and public perception intersect, and what happens next for Carmelo Anthony.

---

Transcript

[A]

You have one new message translating. Disney and Pixar's Hoppers is now available on Disney.

[B]

You could say that again.

[A]

Critics are calling it Pixar's funniest movie ever and a wildly entertaining ride. Blizzard Potato. It's certified fresh and verified hot.

[B]

Now we party. This is incredible. Wow. I am clearing the rest of the day.

[A]

Disney and Pixar's Hoppers now available on Disney. Rated pg.

[C]

This is crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. Carmelo Anthony sits in a Texas prison cell after a jury convicted him of the murder of Austin Metcalfe. Anthony was sentenced to 35 years in prison for the deadly stabbing at a high school track meet. It's a case that has captured the nation. If you love breaking down these cases with me, hit the follow button right now. So you are sure to never miss an episode. Today's guest is Texas criminal defense attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. Jeremy, thank you so much for joining me today.

[B]

Thank you for having me, Donna.

[C]

So, Jeremy, let's talk about the Carmelo Anthony case. People of the state of Texas versus Carmelo Anthony. This trial, we got the verdict yesterday. The sentence came down yesterday. It all happened very fast. Talk to me about how fast paced this trial went and if this is typical for Texas, most specifically that county.

[B]

So it was, it was very quick and it was somewhat efficient. It is, I would say, typical speed for this trial judge and anybody who knows this trial judge knows that, that, that he runs a pretty efficient court. There was a lot of coordination with security officials, with the Collin County Sheriff's Office. This was a very well oiled machine. Judge John Roach, unfortunately, he will be off the bench at the end of the year. He did not seek reelection. He is the kind of judge who's going to eat lunch in the holdover with criminal defendants just to make sure that, you know, they're being fed what, what's appropriate. He's going to sit there and he's going to wear an ankle monitor for three or four weeks. If he's going to order them on people, he's going to sit there and he's going to take the breath device and put it on his car to make sure that that's appropriate. He's that kind of judge. He's even apprehended on his own. This is true story. He apprehended a probationer on his own out of his court from and waited until law enforcement got there. But he saw him on the roadside and hey, you're on probation and you've actually violated, I know there's a warrant out for you. So he actually went out and apprehended the guy. So it's, I think, more of a function of his work ethic over any. Anything else. And we do are. This county does. Pretty much every court is similarly efficient, although he's. He's a hard worker.

[C]

Well, I like to see it. I think it's. First of all, it's nice for. I mean, I know sometimes the lawyers think, oh, my gosh, can you slow down just a little bit, give me some time to breathe. But I do think that for the jurors, it's very fair to get people in and out and take up the least amount of their lives as possible. And I do think that once you start a trial, even for lawyers. Right. We have other cases and other things to do. And sometimes it's nice to know that when a judge gives you a timeframe, they're actually going to stick by it.

[B]

I think that's absolutely right. And I think one of the things that you and I look for in a judge are several things. It's efficiency. It's also predictability. Right. Because we want to be able to tell our client, he or she will do this or they won't do that, or this is sort of what we can anticipate. And what I think is really good about this judge in particular is the way to. The way to survive in his courtroom is to be ready. What a shock, right? It's to be ready, it's to be prepared. It's to be good to go. And he will chew on prosecutors, which is a gear that not every judge has. And so if you know that you're ready and, you know, and you're in good shape and the prosecutor is kind of soup sandwich on a case or ate up, they're going to get chewed on. And that says a lot about that judge.

[C]

Absolutely. And I know that there was a lot of debate in terms of, you know, people in the media and all of those reporting on this case that there were no cameras in the court courtroom. So we had to really rely on. I know you were there one day. I know you did some reporting on this. We had to rely on the very few people. It wasn't a big courtroom. We had to rely on those to kind of give us the information as to what was happening inside of the courtroom. Is this really a function of the way this county and. And Texas state court operates, or was this really spec. The decision to not have cameras in this courtroom based on not only the subject matter, but the age of the majority of people testifying, I think it's a latter.

[B]

I think it has to do with probably the age of a lot of the participants of the case. There was witness testimony from people who were under 17, over 17 years old witnesses, people under the tent. So I think that that's probably a function. We have had high profile cases in Collin county that have been televised. I believe we had one probably. I don't know, it's been maybe eight or nine years ago. It was. I believe it's the Orochi case, which had to do with an abduction from one of our malls. The closing arguments in that case were televised at least, and I remember that they were live streamed to, to everybody in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. So I don't know that this county is just sort of. That's how they are in, in general. I don't know what particular considerations Judge Roach took for these reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a lot of it had to do with the age of a lot of the participants though. So I do think that that's accurate.

[C]

Sure. And that would make sense to me too because I thought about it and obviously for the rest of us, we would have liked to been able to watch and frankly, maybe if people were able to watch, they would have other responses to this because I think sometimes people's response is based on misinformation that we're seeing, you know, outside the courthouse and people having ideas about what they think self defense truly is versus what it is. So I think may it would have. I don't know, it either would have alleviated that or made it worse. And there's, there's no way to know given the fact that that wasn't the option. But in the end, and I've been a big advocate for open courtrooms, especially in the Tyler Robinson case in Utah. But I, I did agree with the decision in this case to, to keep it closed. I thought it was the right, the right move.

[B]

There were several instances where the. The court indicated that he requested, which is, I think all a judge can do, that the media use initials because this particular witness was under the age of 18. I don't know that there's a state law that requires that and if so, I'm sure it would be litigated. But most every news agency and outlet was very respectful of that. So I know that that was first and foremost and sunshine, sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I think you're absolutely correct. I was this weekend I got free Tickets to the Texas Rangers baseball game. I only go when it's free. And I got a buddy who had tickets, and he and I are talking in line about the trial, and I'm kind of telling him what I see. And the person in line ahead of me getting her nachos, turns around and starts to say, well, no, I heard this and that. And the person behind us, no, no, no, no, no. The tent was over here. So this really, this was very, very big news here in the Metroplex. And, and again, to your point, if it's televised, it really erases a lot of that speculation because we can sort of all see it. Then again, you obviously have to balance it with the proceedings, making sure the defense and the prosecution get their day in court. I thought Judge Roach did it fine. I'm sure there's probably other ways to have handled it, and it would have been okay, too, but, yeah, I think it's certainly something other judges going forward can learn from.

[C]

Absolutely. So this jury deliberated for just about three hours and came back with the finding that, you know, they found Carmelo Anthony guilty of murder. They rejected the manslaughter charge, which I thought was interesting, because I thought once Judge Roach allowed the manslaughter instruction, I thought maybe because we know a lot of times juries do like to split the baby. They like to put themselves in a situation where they feel like everybody kind of wins. And when that, when that was an option to them, I thought that could very well be something that they may hang their hat on. But when the decision was as quick, when it came back as quickly as it did, I thought, okay, there's. There's no way this is going to be anything other than first degree murder. What are your thoughts on the speed of the verdict, and why do you think they came to the decision as quickly as they did?

[B]

Well, obviously, they had a lot of consensus amongst the jury. That's a very quick time in a trial that took this long. That's a very quick time. You know, I'm sure your experience is, is even when jurors go back there and, and they're. They're all sort of. Of the same mindset. They're still going to. They're all going to use the bathroom. So. So if you lose a case within the first 15 minutes, you've really lost it bad. But, but not only that. They're. They're going to go and they're all going to look and review at the evidence just because they kind of feel like they have agree on everything. So, yes, I'm completely with you. When it was a quick verdict, you know, I sort of got the feeling that it, that it, that it was, that it was not going to be good for Carmelo Anthony. And yes, I completely agree with you, Donna. I'm a firm believer in the more choices that juries have, the more they're going to split this, the more they're going to split it up. If you had asked me this five months ago, 10 months ago, right after it happened, I would have told you there's a lot of manslaughter facts here and that self defense was really unrealistic from day one. You can ask for it, you can argue it, and any lawyer ought to, but there's just a lot of. But this case lends itself a lot more to manslaughter. And the defense got every charge that they asked for. And the jury in this case had multiple off ramps and they just didn't take any. So it shows you that the prosecution did a really good job here. Again, being in the courtroom, I saw a lot of head nodding from the jury. They were laughing at a lot of the police officer jokes, you know, on a more serious tone. On a more serious note, when they played, I was there the day they played Austin Metcalf getting CPR from, from first responders, there were tears. Some of the jurors were wiping away tears. And I stared and watched as long as I could to make sure it wasn't, you know, allergies or somebody sneezing. And this person repeatedly wiped away their tears. So the prosecution really, I mean, they, they drew up a plan and they executed it. And regardless of what you think of the verdict, they, they really did their job here.

[D]

Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at foxnewswineshop.com with code FNRADIO20. 20% discount, excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31, 2026. Must be 21 or older. To order. Please drink responsibly.

[C]

Well, and good facts, right? Good facts make. Make good lawyers in good cases. And frankly, the prosecution, I think, just had the better facts here. And I agree with you. We as lawyers, we have to do anything that we can do to defend our clients in the best way possible. And I think that, you know, talking about self defense here was probably something that they had to do. They didn't have many other options. But I agree that it wasn't anything that I thought was was going to be very viable from the beginning based on the facts. But what I am interested in talking about is this manslaughter out that they kind of got here. And you're right, they got every charge that they were asking for. And do you think, and I want to talk about the decision for Carmelo Anthony not to testify. And I really thought the minute he decided not to testify, I thought, well, you're going nowhere now for sure. And your self defense claims not only given the fact that he didn't testify, but given the fact that the other defense witness got on the witness stand and admitted when the prosecution got to cross examine that Carmelo was the aggressor. And so don't you think that at some point in the trial they should have said, look, like the only hope we have here is for you to get up on that stand and you to ex. You explain to this jury the fear that you thought you were in.

[B]

Exactly. And, and I, I was pretty surprised when he didn't testify. And for, I think anybody watching this, that's, that's not a lawyer. This is a two level, two tier issue, right? To get a jury charge in Texas, you have a burden of production. You've got to put some evidence on in your case. You can't rely on cross examination to do it. You've got to put evidence up in your case that you feared for your life. And that doesn't have to come from the defendant. You can nibble around the edges and you can get it through, through a back door. But that brings you to the second issue. It's got to be persuasive. And, and the defense tried to get a little cute with it. They, they said, well, we're just going to sort of put a buddy on the stand. And, and, and it's, it, it. And it's called a confession and avoidance statute, meaning you have to admit to the conduct. Can't say, well, but if I did, I was defending myself. That doesn't work. So they qualified for the defense. They met the legal threshold. But I think you're exactly right, Donna. You gotta make it real. And you were never gonna make it real in this case, probably in any regard. But you had really no prayer without him on the stand. And that was a decision that. Again, look, I've been in that room before. You've been in that room before. Maybe the kid refused to get up there and testify. Maybe the lawyers, who knows what their judgment process was. But, but obviously, I mean, we can armchair quarterback this. The verdict couldn't have gotten any worse for him, you know, so, so I think we can all see sort of in hindsight that I think he should have testified.

[C]

Yeah. And I also think especially, and I want to get into this a little bit too, the fact that the jury makes the sentencing decision here, which is very rare for, you know, most other states in our union. And so knowing that the jury's going to make this decision ultimately, I feel like at some point his testimony would have at least been mitigating. Right. Although they may not have bought the self defense, they may have at least understood where his mind was, maybe made you maybe leads down the manslaughter, you know, Lane a little bit or maybe at least for sentencing purposes, they've now listened to this young man and they feel some sense of sympathy and, or understanding for the fact that this is the mind of a 17 year old that may not be thinking through the, you know, ramifications of his actions in that split second. And I thought if I'm on that jury, I want to hear about the fear that he was feeling and whether or not I could determine that that was reasonable or not. And I just, I don't think that there was ever, they ever kind of really got into his behavior being reasonable in any way, shape or form.

[B]

No, I think you're, I think you are exactly right. And I think sometimes we make these, these things too complicated. A jury verdict is always going to be literally about the scales of justice if you think about it. And an example that I like to give folks, that I give to my clients is this, let's say for argument's sake, and I'm going to sound like a crazy person here, which is probably why you guys called me, but that's fine. But the, let's say for argument's sake that we made alcohol a crime, possessing alcohol, drinking alcohol a crime punishable by death. Okay? And if we caught somebody on videotape with, with a Miller Light can and we got, and we got them on video drinking and we tested their blood alcohol concentration, they've got it in their system. We dust the can. Fingerprints, it's them. We've got their DNA from the lip. We've proven 18 ways till Sunday that they were drinking alcohol, the jury will find that person not guilty because they don't think the death penalty is warranted in that case. If we made consuming alcohol a crime where you pay a 10 cent fee and all you have to do is scan a QR code to pay your fee from your phone every time you get caught the jury gets angry at you for contesting the case even with no evidence. There is a literal scale of justice. And I think you're exactly right, Donna. If he gets on the witness stand, even if he does not talk his way out of the case with self defense, he may very well talk his way in to manslaughter because the jury either feels like, okay, well, now we understand it. Now we think that the scales of justice are balancing. Now we see that the punishment is sort of fitting the crime here. So I do think that there's a lot of emotional undertones here. And I, and I, and I, and I'm a big believer also in exactly what you're saying, which is, look, the jury is, is, is that they are making these, these decisions and the more and more choices they get, the more and more likely they are to take a different exit ramp.

[C]

And even with the sudden provocation, right, they determined that, that, that didn't hold water here, which again, I think is really difficult to establish without actually hearing from the person who used that knife. So it was just really interesting to me. And you know, as somebody who's tried several self defense cases, I have to count, but many, especially in Chicago where, you know, we have the, the most gun control laws on the planet, but more guns on the streets. So we have definitely tried many cases where self defense is an issue. And I, I would say nine and a half times out of 10, I have put my client on the witness stand. I don't know, there's other lawyers who think I'm crazy, but I, I just think that at the end of the day when you are asking a jury to get into your mind without you getting up there, it's very, very tough to do that.

[B]

Right. And, and I think that I'm completely with you on that. And, and a lot of times I think lawyers get intimidated. They're, they're, we're control freaks. We're sort of trained to be control freaks and we're sort of trained and indoctrinated that oh my gosh, nothing good happens when you put your client on the stand. I, I, I tend to take a fairly aggressive standpoint from putting my client on the stand. Now there are cases where, where I tell my client I've got, I'm going to win this thing without you and I don't need your help. So you're going to sit down and you're going to shut up. Okay. And you're going to be over here and you have the right to testify. That's true. I also have the right to tackle you on the way to the witness chair. Right. So that's the thing. You know, you can do that, but I'm with you. You have to pay attention to the emotional level as well as the legal level. And some lawyers just think, well, but I got a jury charge, and you know as well as I do, and, and one of the things, a concept that we've, we talk about is there, there's, there's probably more crass ways to put this, but unringing the bell, right, which is when somebody makes a statement in court and the, and, and one of the lawyers makes a motion to strike it, and the, and the, the, the judge says the jury shall disregard the comment about the pink elephant. We all know that that doesn't work. So sometimes I think lawyers get really too caught up in the technical part of it. And I think that the defense thought, well, we'll just get, we're going to risk a very little bit and get as, just get that defense. And then we're going to kind of hide and hope that the jury bites it. Bites on it. But like you're saying, you also have to persuade.

[C]

Yeah, it was really interesting to me. Let's talk about the jury sentence. The jury came down with 35 years. It's my understanding under Texas law, he must serve at least half of that before he's eligible for parole. Tell me if you think you thought the sentence was fair and tell me how much of that time you actually think he will do.

[B]

I think he's going to do most, if not all of it, and that depends candidly on the Metcalf family and whether or not they're going to show up to his parole hearing and take a stand. If he's eligible for parole after half, 50% in Texas being a weapon offense, he's going to serve more statistically than, than, than I think if this were, if this were selling drugs or something like that. So I do think he, he would be on the higher end of the range. And when somebody shows up to a parole hearing and is angry, the person typically doesn't get paroled and parole hearings. They'll, they'll have 12 in a day, and they'll do one after the other after the other after the other, and nobody shows up for any of them. And if 17 people show up to one and there's, there's a bunch of, you know, tears and a lot of emotion there, then that parole is going to get denied. I will say the fact that Metcalfe did Not testify in the case may be indicative of their grieving process. And of course there's no right and wrong way to grieve. And it's for nobody to tell them whether to forgive Carmelo Anthony or not. That that's their business and their business alone. If they're of the mindset to forgive him and, and they want there to be some additional mercy, they, they can certainly go to the parole board and, and request that for his hearing. So I, I would.

[C]

They did give statements though yesterday. They did read statements after the sentence came down. So they, they were definitely not happy with, with what took place. And they were, they were pretty tough on Carmelo Anthony yesterday. So if that's any indication.

[B]

Yeah. And, and I'll tell you this much. When I went to court, I, I did. I wouldn't recognize the, the Metcalfs if they bit me. When I went to court the day I did, I, I realized that his parents were sitting not the seat next to me, but the seat next to them. They were flanked by some investigators from the DA's office that I knew. I didn't know it was them until they really started crying during the CPR video. So this was obviously very important to them and 17 years, a long time. So we don't know again one way or the other. Again, my experience is that probably he doesn't parole out early and if he does, it would only be a couple years.

[C]

Tell me what you think the jury would have needed to hear under Texas law in order for self defense have been viable here.

[B]

The jury needed to hear that Carmelo Anthony feared for his life. And, and Texas has two general zones of self defense. One is what we would call force and then the other is called deadly force. If you perceive an assault, an attack, that is force and you are allowed to use force to repel that. That is you are allowed to inflict bodily injury at most meaning pain, something like that. And it's not a perfect scale. If somebody, if there's unwanted touching. I've had self defense cases where, where one person is, is holding up their hand and merely touches the other person, the other person grabs them or hits them. It may be excessive, but that would still be permissible because force has one definition. Deadly force is the use or exhibit of a deadly weapon or something where you are. You imminently fear permanent or bodily injury or serious bodily injury or death. So he would have had to, the jury would have had to hear something a little more dangerous than what they did. And this is, so this is where the prosecution I think was probably more effective. The day that I watched, I watched about six witnesses testify who were all under the tent. Okay. And as a defense lawyer, I'm watching it, and I'm kind of taking their testimony with a bit of a grain of salt. The prosecution is very jovial with these witnesses, very humanizing. The witnesses. Mothers were in the back of the room, and he would say, Mrs. Jones, or whatever their name would be, wave your hand and show the jury who you are. And are you nervous? Yes, I am. What do you want to do when you grow up? That type of thing. A lot of really good rapport building, which is really tiny, but it matters, and it adds up over the period of a trial. And each witness said the same thing. They all said to some degree, they disagreed on the. And the prosecution got some answers that they didn't expect, too. So they. They got. You know, they're. They're trial lawyers also, and they're. They got teenagers up on the stand. One of the witnesses testified, he said that that Metcalf approached Carmelo aggressively. And it was kind of a bit of one of those courtroom moments where my lawyer. Heirs Picks. Picks up, oh, we didn't expect that one. And I could see the reaction of the prosecutor. But then, you know, they tried to adjust and kind of make the best out of it, but they all sort of testified similarly, and they got everybody to say, or I should say, they got everybody say. Everybody said Carmelo was the aggressor. Every witness also said Carmelo was sitting. Every other witness also said that Austin Metcalfe stood up. Everybody else also said that Austin Metcalfe stepped over, and everybody else said that Austin Metcalf was the only one to create any contact. So, you know, you could see. I. I think the jury could kind of get to the truth there through some of the spin. Right. And that. And that's how a prosecutor is going to ask that question, you know, and as the defense, that's just. That's your job to say, okay, all right. Blink twice if you're in trouble. You know, I know everybody's in here, everybody's staring at you, but, okay, really, Was he really the aggressor? And you're saying Austin didn't want to fight, and are you okay? Kind of. Because Austin kind of came and, you know, pushing somebody is, you know, so when you hear six witnesses, eight witnesses, all testify really 80% the same, you know as well as I do that the jury gets a pretty clear picture of what happened.

[C]

Yeah, it's really. It's it's so unfortunate. You know, the whole thing was so avoidable and so tragic in so many ways. And I just hope that these young kids look at this and that kids all over the country, because obviously this thing is everywhere. It's on social media, it's on every TikTok platform. And so hopefully there's kids out there that are going to learn how to say, let me get my emotions in check and let me not have these types of situations escalate like this because it's just, it's really unfortunate for our listeners. Jeremy, tell me about what type of jury pool Collin county has. What does it look like? I know it's a very fast growing county, right? It's one of the fastest growing in the country, right?

[B]

It. Well, it's the center of the universe. All you have to do is come here and ask us and we'll tell you that it's all about.

[C]

So that's why people want to Notre Dame. No, no, I'm just kidding. Go ahead.

[B]

You're in Chicago, so. Yeah, I guess you have your own problems there. Okay. So when we. So Collin county got about, we got about a million people here. And we're a suburb of Dallas. We're to the north of Dallas, so it's a suburban community, but about a million people. It is. It's fairly diverse. We have a very big IT sector. We have a very, we have a very big Asian population. We have a lot of South Asian population. This jury was diverse. However, there were no African Americans. I want to say that African Americans make up. I'd be getting it wrong about 10 to 13% of our county. There were some Batson challenges, which is pretty rare too, which you know, again, to the non lawyers watching, I mean, those are fighting words when you strike somebody that's of a minority. And the other lawyer says, under Batson versus Kentucky, I'm going to challenge this as a racially motivated strike. You're not going to go get coffee anytime soon with, with, with that prosecutor. Okay. I mean, that is a probably a broken relationship which the two. The one of the defense lawyers was a senior prosecutor with the lead prosecutor. So I'd be really curious to see what that dynamic is like going forward. Like I said, it was a diverse jury, but there were no African Americans that I saw on the jury.

[C]

And, and that is. Was one of the issues. Right? There were three African American females, three black jurors that were struck by the state. And when they wanted to strike them, the defense raised that challenge, which is The Batson challenge, claiming that they wanted to strike them solely based on race. And the response from the prosecutors, which I thought was reasonable, was that they were all educators and that they did not want teachers on the jury. And I. That I could actually really understand, given the facts and circumstances of this case. Nonetheless, that made it a very difficult situation, I think, and probably, and you correct me if I'm wrong, probably going to be, you know, number one on the list for the appellate issues in this case. Now, whether or not it's successful is another story, but I definitely think it's something that they're going to raise. What do you think about that?

[B]

Oh, absolutely. There's. They're going to raise those, and they're going to raise those for multiple reasons, not the least of which is you have to raise any objection in a case like this that you think think has legs. It's a discretionary call. To your point, you're exactly right. Meaning that. That. That the court of appeals probably not going to disturb that on appeal unless they can show. Well, what about these other two or three educators that were here that you didn't strike right then? Then you may have some problems, but I wouldn't think that that would be a mistake that the prosecution would make or Judge Roach, having said all that. It's really more of a political issue than it is, I think, a legal issue. And I tragically, I worry that there's a lot of people that would look at this verdict and just never accept it for this reason and this reason alone, the district attorney in Collin County, Texas, Greg Willis, who's a friend of mine, his job is to protect the citizens of Collin county and to serve the citizens of Collin County. And I don't know that he's particularly concerned with that perception, whether, regardless of what I think or what anybody else thinks. But I do worry that if people are going to undermine this verdict, that is why. And. And so that's a. You know, it's a. It's a choice that the state made the choice to strike. The defense made the choice to Batson. And that's probably the most dramatic moment, really, of this trial.

[C]

Well, you know, I look at these things, and I think that, you know, obviously, all of us as trial lawyers, we know that once jurors are seated, they really do want to try to get it right. And the problem, I think, and it's part of the misconceptions of this case, is the problem is, is that race came in as this sort of overarching issue, but race had absolutely nothing to do with. With the facts of this case. Nothing. There was not one fact that said anybody discussed color of skin or that was the reason anybody asked anybody to act in any way, shape or form. It wasn't like, leave my temper because you're black or you're a white supremacist, or I'm gonna kill you because I'm afraid of you because you're white. None of that was a part of this case. And so I think the fact that that's been so much of the noise outside, I really think that once you look at the record from the court, you're going to realize that that really had no bearing whatsoever on this case in any way.

[B]

Yeah, anytime. And I'll tell you this, so anytime, Donna, that we're talking about the race card, I. I always think the question is, was race a factor to who? Right.

[C]

Right.

[B]

To the public. To me. I'm not in there. I'm not. So it doesn't matter if it's a factor to me or. Or not. And in. In. If you were to ask the Metcalfs, they would absolutely say race had nothing to do with our son's involvement in this case. There were four witnesses that. That were teammates of his that were African American, that were sitting under the same tent that testified against Carmelo Anthony. So I have a hard time thinking that there was any. Anything going on like that with Austin Metcalf. If you were to ask Carmelo Anthony and the people who love him, they would tell you race is a factor. And it's not my job or my prerogative to tell them that they're wrong and to what extent they're right, if they're right at all. I just, you know, so to me, the fact that we're talking about it means that it probably plays some role somewhere. Again, that's for them. That's for their. For them to feel, decide and all those things. I think what's evident is that. And what's important here is that it was not a factor for the jury. So I think if it were a factor for the jury, I think we would see something different. I think we would see a different outcome here.

[C]

So what's next for Carmelo Anthony? He's been sentenced. He. I read today was being moved to a prison in Texas. Anything more that we will hear from him, other than the appeal that we know they will file, but anything more we will hear from him in Collin County?

[B]

Not much. I think that. So he. If. So, typically, what happens when somebody goes to Prison in Texas is. You're typically quarantined in place, and that means that he would stay here in Collin county for a month, six weeks, something like that. People shouldn't be shocked to know that prisons are very slow with their paperwork and that it takes a long time to kind of get people where they want to go. But. But he'll eventually go with the state and he'll eventually get assigned a unit in the Texas Department of Corrections. His appeal is going to be a very, very slow moving thing, as you know, probably going to take a year, maybe more. That's going to be a very long record that the court reporter and all that everybody sort of developed. So. So that. That's going to take a minute, and it's really hard to find sitting here. It's going to be hard to. It's hard to think of anything on direct appeal. That. That's going to get a lot of momentum there. This, the defense, other than the Batson challenge, really was somewhat passive. When I watched, I may have seen two objections the whole day from the. From the defense, which is fine. That. That strategy, that doesn't make them ineffective. You can certainly go along to get along. I kind of. I don't know. I'm a little more petulant in trial. That's just me. But. But to each their right. So. So, yeah, it doesn't mean they did anything wrong, but it means you can't really appeal anything.

[C]

So I know that there was talk out there that they've already filed an appeal, but I think, correct me if I'm wrong, what they probably filed is the notice of appeal, and then the actual appeal gets filed after you get the transcripts. Is that how it works in Texas?

[B]

What you would typically do is you would file a motion for new trial. And you do that typically for two reasons. You do that first strategy. And you do that to be nice to the court reporter, frankly, because the court reporter's got to get the whole thing to the court of appeals, and it extends your deadline to appeal to 75 days, and you can develop a record for things that happen afterwards. You take Alex Murdoch, for example. You didn't know that the court clerk had been chatting with everybody until after the trial was over. And. And so you've got to, you know, and what people don't understand about appeals is there's no witness stand at the court of Appeals. The court of appeals can't take new evidence. They have to take the evidence from the lower court. So you give yourself an extra six weeks to develop or actually no. 75 days. I went to Texas Tech for undergrad. I know dinosaurs and shapes. I don't math. But 75, two and a half months and gambling. 75 days, two and a half months on some type of potentially something that. That's off the record. A witness who comes back after the case is over and says, well, the prosecution didn't tell you this or something that was off the record. So there are strategic reasons to do that. But you may see a motion for a new trial, again, usually for strategic reasons, but that then. Then you sort of go into the appeal in earnest after that.

[C]

Wonderful. Well, I cannot thank you enough for your time, Jeremy. This has been great, great insight out of Collin County. Would love to have you back again because I'm sure this will not be the last time we discuss this us. Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions or theories and we will answer them on air.